University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


PUBLIC  DISCUSSION 


OF  THE 


ISSUES  BETWEEN 

The  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints 


AND 


The  Church  of  Christ  [Disciples] 

HELD  IN  KIRTLAND,  OHIO 
Beginning  February  12,  and  Closing  March  8,  1884 

BETWEEN 

E.  L.  KELLEY,  of  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints 

AND 

CLARK  BRADEN,  of  The  Church  of  Christ 


MODERATORS 

E.  B.  BOND,  of  Kiitland,  Ohio,         -         -  .           Chairman. 

W.  H.  KELLEY.  of  Coldwater,  Mch.,-    .  .     For  Mr.  Kelley. 

A.  B.  DEMING,  of  Kirtland,  Ohio,       .          .  For  Mr.  Braden. 


PROPOSITIONS 

I.  Is  the  Book  of  Mormon  of  divine  origin,  and  are  its  tc«chin£  s  entitled  to  the  respect  and  belief  of  all  Chris- 
tian people?    MR.  KELLEY,  Affirmed. 

II.  Is  the  Church  of  •which  I,  Clark  Braden  am  a  member,  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  identical  in  faith,  organ- 
ization, ordinances,  worship  t  nd  practice,  with  the  Church  of  Christ  as  it  was  left  perfected  by  the  Apostles  of 
Christ?    MR.  BRADEN,  Affirmed. 

in.    Is  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  in  fact,  the  Church  of  God,  and  accepted 
with  h:m?    MR.  KELLEY,  Affirmed. 


Published  by 

THE  HERALD  PUBLISHING  HOUSE, 

Lamoni,         -         Iowa 

1913 


PREFACE. 


It  is  not  necessary  to  detail  all  that  led  to  the  debate  in  Kirtland,  Ohio.  Suffice  it  to 
Bay  that  it  was  held  by  mutual  agreement  between  Mr.  Kelly  of  the  H.  C.  of  J.  C.  of  Latter 
Day  Saints;  and  Mr.  Braden  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  known  as  Disciples  in  the  East  and 
North,  and  as  Christians  in  the  West  and  South.  The  following  were  the  Rules  of 
Discussion  between  Clark  Braden  and  E.  L.  Kelley. 

1.  The   discussion    shall    be  held    at  Kirtland,   Lake  County,    Ohio,    commencing1 
February  12,  1884,  and  shall  continue  for  the  time  of  sixteen  sessions  of  two  hours  each  to 
be  held  each  day  as  the  parties  shall  determine. 

2.  Each  session  shall  be  occupied  by  two  speeches  each,   bv  the  disputants,  of  one 
half  hour  each.    The  affirmative  shall  open  and   the  negative  shall  close  the  debate  on 
each  proposition,  but  in  the  closing  speeches  no  new  matter  shall  be  introduced  without 
mutual  consent. 

3.  Each  party  shall  choose  a  moderator,  and  they  too  shall  choose  a  third  if  necessary 
the  duties  of  whom  shall  be  the  usual  duties  of  moderators  of  such  assemblies. 

4.  Eight  sessions  of  two  hours  each  shall  be  given  to  the  first  proposition,  and  four 
sessions  of  two  hours  each  shall  be  given  to  each  of  the  others. 

5.  Each  session  shall  be  opened  and  closed  by  prayer,  by  the  parties  alternately,  or  by 
selection. 

6.  The  parties  shall  be  governed  by  Hedge's  Rules  of  Logic  in  this  discussion  as 
follows : 

Rule  1st.  The  terms  in  which  the  question  in  debate  is  expressed,  and  the  precise 
point  at  issue,  should  be  so  clearly  defined  that  there  can  be  no  misunderstanding 
respecting  them. 

Rule  2d.  The  parties  should  mutually  consider  each  other  as  standing  on  a  footing 
of  equality  in  respect  to  the  subject  in  debate,  each  should  regard  the  other  as  possessing 
equal  talents,  knowledge  and  desire  for  truth,  with  himself  and  that  it  is  possible 
therefore  that  he  may  be  in  the  wrong  and  his  adversary  in  the  right. 

Rule  3d.  All  expressions  which  are  unmeaning,  or  without  effect,  in  regard  to  the 
subject  in  debate,  should  be  strictly  avoided.  All  expressions  may  be  considered  as 
unmeaning  which  contributes  nothing  to  the  proof  of  the  question,  such  as  desultory 
remarks,  and  declamatory  expressions,  all  technical  ambiguities  and  equivocal  expressions. 

Itule  4th.  Personal  reflections  on  an  adversary  should  in  no  instance  be  indulged  in. 
Whatever  his  private  character,  his  follies  are  not  to  be  named,  nor  alluded  to  iu 
controversy.  Personal  reflections  are  not  only  destiiute  of  effect  in  respect  to  the 
question  in  discussion,  but  they  are  productive  of  real  evil. 

Rule  5th.    No  one  has  a  right  to  accuse  his  adversary  with  indirect  motives. 

Rule  6th.  The  consequences  of  any  doctrine  are  not  to  be  charged  on  him  whp 
maintains  it,  unless  he  expressly  avows  them. 

Rule  7th.  As  truth  and  not  victory  is  the  professed  object  of  controversy,  whatever 
proofs  may  be  on  either  side  should  be  examined  with  fairness  and  candor,  and  any 
attempt  to  ensnare  an  adversary  by  arts  or  sophistry,  or  to  lessen  the  force  of  hie 
reasoning  by  wit,  caviling,  or  ridicule,  is  a  violation  of  the  rules  or  honorable  controversy. 


The  Following  are  the  Propositions  agreed  upon  by  Disputants,  and  their  Order 

1  Is  the  Book  of  Mormon  of  divine  origin,  and  are  its  teachings  entitled  to  the 
respect  and  belief  of  all  Christian  people? 

KELLEY,  AFF. 

2.  Is  the  church  of  which  I,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member,  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
idenHcal   in   faith,   organization,  teaching,  ordinances,  worship  and   practice   with  the 
church  of  Christ  as  it  was  left  perfected  by  the  Apostles? 

BRADEN,  AFF. 

3.  Is  the  Re-organized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  L.  D.  S.  in  fact  the  Church  of  God, 
and  accepted  with  him? 

KELLEY,  AFF. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  questions  the  Bible  is  to  be  the  standard  of  evidence,  but 
either  party  has  the  privilege  Of  also  using  whatever  proofs  tie  may  bring  from 
Historical,  Ethnological,  Scientific  or  other  works. 

(Signed.)  CLARK^BRADEN. 

E.  L.  KELLEY. 

By  mutual  consent  the  time  to  the  first  proposition  was  extended  two  evenings  and 
hence  the  entire  discussion  was  18  instead  of  1H  sessions  as  provided  by  the  foregoing  rules. 
Nearly  all  of  tho  matter  presented  in  debate  was  read  from  manuscript  on  both  sides, 
hence  the  matter  in  tho  Book  is  almost  vc,rb<ithn,  as  it  was  presented  in  the  debate. 

With  the  hope  and  prayer  that  the  book  may  aid  in  leading  all  readers  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  it  is  submitted  to  the  reader  by  the  authors. 

CLARK  BRADEN, 
E.  L.  KELLEY. 


nn  n/          'i  i 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE, 


FIRST  PROPOSITION. 
Js  the  Book   of  Mormon  of    divine   origin 

and  it&  teachings  entitled   to  the  respect 

and  belief  of  ail  Christian  people  t 
REPORT. 

The  parties  met  according  to  appointment 
on  the  12th  day  of  February,  1884,  at  seven 
o'clock  p.  m.  in  the  Town  Hall,  Kirtland, 
Ohio. 

MODERATORS. 

Messrs.  Ezra  Bond,  Wm.  H.  Kelley  and 
A.  B.  Deming. 

The  meeting  having  been  called  to  order, 
the  chairman  moderator,  Mr.  Bond,  had 
read  the  rules  of  the  debate  as  agreed  upon 
by  the  parties,  and  the  propositions  agreed 
upon  for  discussion. 

Mr.  Kelley  then  opened  the  debate  as  fol- 
lows : — 

GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — It  is  with  some  degree  of 
pleasure  that  I  appear  before  you  this 
evening  to  enter  upon  an  invet  tigation 
of  the  question  which  kas  just  been 
read  in  your  hearing.  And  I  say  this, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  of  which  I 
am  already  aware,  that  to  undertake 
such  a  task  requires  on  the  part  of  any 
disputant  a  work  of  constant  and  contin- 
uous labor  ;  and  when  one  is  called  upon  in 
Buch  investigation  to  also  contend  with  an 
experienced  and  persistent  debater  the  un- 
dertaking will  necessarily  be  with  propor- 
tionate difficulties. 

But  I  am  happy  in  this  step  toward  a 
critical  examination  of  the  proposition  for 
the  reason  that  I  believe  there  is  a  merit, 
deep  and  lasting,  attached  to  the  subject- 
matter  that  few  realize,  and  that  should  be 
attained  by  all  mankind,  and  a  fair  and 
candid  investigation  will  enable  you  to 
judge  for  yourselves  of  this,  and  decide  as 
»11  thinking  men  and  women  should  as  to 
the  merits  or  demerits,  and  let  the  decision 
be  whichever  way  it  may,  it  will  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  not  only  affect  you  here  but  in  a 
manner  in  all  time  that  is  to  come.  I  say 
this,  not  for  the  purpose  of  stating  to  you 
anything  that  is  calculated  to  terrify  one  in 
any  respect  with  regard  to  the  investigation 
of  the  question  at  issue,  for  I  not  only  be- 
lieve it  is  so  with  regard  to  the  subject-mat- 
ter in  dispute  here,  but  it  is  so  also  of  any 
truth,  any  rule  of  action  or  fact  that  has 
emanated  from  the  divine  being,  or  that  has 
been  in  this  sphere  elicited  by  mankind  ;  it 
being  better  that  the  people  should  be 
brought  in  Contact  with  and  that  they 
should  accept  that  which  is  true,  rather 
than  that  they  should  not  come  in  contact 


with  it,  or  that  they  should  reject  it  after 
having  in  vestiga ted. 

This  is  not  only  true  in  religion  but  also 
in  other  matters.  It  is  a  fact  as  to  the 
affairs  of  government ;  in  science  and  the 
arts  of  man,  and  in  fact  through  all  the 
broad  dominion  of  knowledge  and  exper- 
ience. It  is  far  better  that  the  faith  and 
impulses  of  the  race  be  founded  in  truth 
than  error,  let  that  truth  spring  from 
whatever  source  it  may  ;  and  believing  also 
that  mankind  in  the  matter  of  religion  may 
in  the  fullest  sense  become  better  while 
here  in  this  life,  and  thus  be  better  fitted  to 
enjoy  and  inherit  the  life  to  be  made  mani- 
fest, by  conforming  to-that  which  is  true, — 
that  system  of  religion  which  is  in  fact  a 
revealed  science  from  above,  must  contain 
truths,  which  if  believed  and  followed,  will 
affect  the  life  and  character  here  and  so  re- 
late to  us  in  the  great  hereafter,  to  a  greater 
extent  than  can  principles  started  or  evolved 
by  the  wise  of  this  little  world  of  ours. 

Taking  up  the  subject-matter  under  dis- 
cussion, I  refer  you  directly  to  the  question  : 
The  Book  of  Mormon  ! — Is  it  of  divine 
origin  ?  and  are  its  teachings  of  such  a 
character  as  to  entitle  them  to  the  re- 
spect and  belief  of  all  Christian  people? 
These  are  questions  that  you  ought  to  be 
able  to  answer  correctly  and  intelligently, 
as  you  are  called  upon  to  pass  judgment 
upon  them  from  time  to  time,  and  also  to 
pass  upon  the  society,  so  far  as  reflecting 
your  views  are  concerned,  which  believes 
the  work  is  of  divine  origin  and  that  its 
teachings  are  calculated  of  their  very  nature 
to  elevate  the  human  family  and  to  make 
men  better  here  and  thereby  prepared  for 
better  promises  the  reali/ation  of  which  is 
to  come.  Do  not  overlook  the  gist  of  this 
proposition  ; — it  not  only  contains  teachings 
of  value,  but  those  of  as  high  a  nature  as 
can  be  found  in  any  work  written  in  any 
age  so  far  as  furnished  us  in  the  history  of 
the  race.  That  we  are  bound  as  enlighten- 
ed people  to  give  to  the  claim  by  this  work 
of  being  of  "  divine  origin,"  a  candid  and 
careful  consideration,  will  certainly  follow 
if  the  work  is  brought  under  such  circum- 
stances and  in  that  way  as  to  present  in  its 
behalf  a  prima  facie  case  touching  its  mer- 
its arid  its  origin.  And  while  it  may  be 
true  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  that  you  are 
not  required  to  examine  everything  that  is 
thrown  upon  the  world  in  order  to  fulfill 
the  purposes  and  designs  of  creation,  it  is  a 
fact  which  relates  to  the  human  family  as 
absolutely  as  that,  truth  is  more  to  be  desir- 
ed than  error  in  its  development,  that 
whenever  a  fair  and  proper  case  is  made 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


upon  the  very  outset  of  a  matter,  claiming 
to  be  the  truth,  or  a  thing  of  divine  source, 
it  is  incumbent  upon  all  to  hear  and  make 
a  fair  and  candid  examination  of  the  same  ; 
and  when  persons  go  so  far  as  to  judge 
a  matter  before  hearing  it,  or  to  pass  a  case 
fairly  presented  without  the  trouble  even  of 
giving  it  a  hearing,  they  violate  the  prime 
law  by  which  truth  is  made  attainable  in 
the  wo; Id  and  progress  possible,  and  thus 
far  must  forever  stand  condemned  by  Him 
•who  ordained  the  law  for  a  wise  purpose 
and  gave  to  the  creature  thereunder  intelli- 
gence and  liberty  of  action. 

The  injunction  to  "Prove  all  things  and 
holdfast  that  which  is  good,"  is  certainly 
taken  in  the  light  of  human  reason  a  good 
one  ;  and  I  go  so  far  as  to  say,  that  neither 
you  nor  any  other  people  should  be  called 
upon  to  accept  as  truth  a  matter  or  princi- 
ple relating  directly  to  them,  except  upon  a 
due  examination  of  the  evidences  favoring 
the  same,  or  so  much  as  may  be  necessary 
to  support  the  principle ;  and  in  the  progres's 
of  this  discussion  I  shall  only  call  upon 
you  to  accept  as  truth  the  work  referred  to 
in  the  proposition  after  you  shall  have  had 
some  of  the  evidences  relating  thereto. 

The  Book  of  Morman  comes  to  the  people 
in  such  a  shape  as  to  fairly  demand  of 
them  a  candid  and  impartial  examination. 
Whatever  may  be  said  as  to  the  work  other- 
wise, in  the  presentation  of  it  at  least  there 
is  madeout  a  clear,  concise,  and  prima  facia 
case,  containing  every  essential  feature 
that  would  be  requisite  to  a  bona  fide  mes- 
sage or  work  absolutely  emanating  from 
the  creator  of  the  race  and  the  dispenser  of 
the  system  of  religion  as  reflected  in  the 
Bible,  the  admitted  standard  of  truth  in 
this  controversy. 

This  is  made  apparant  from  the  follow- 
ing facts  set  forth  on  the  face  of  the  work : 

1.  It    makes   claim    to    have    originated 
from  the  proper  source.    It  does  not  claim 
to  have  originated  with  man.    It  does  not 
claim  to  be  the  doctrines  of  any  false  god 
that  has  invaded  this  world ;  or  of  any  god 
made  with  men's  hands.    It  claims  to  have 
had  its  origin  in  the  work  of  Him  who  de- 
livered a   like   record   to  a  people  on  the 
Eastern     continent    of    the    world.      And 
since  the  claim  of  its  origin  is  from  the 
same  source  from  which  we  claim  to  have 
received  the  Bible,  the  first  position  of  the 
prima  facia  case    is    clear,  and   thus    far 
makes  the  work  entitled  to  the  respect  and 
careful  consideration  of  all. 

2.  It  claims  to  contain  a  proper  message. 
A  communication  from  Jehovah  to  any  part 
of  the  race  would  contain  a  message  evi- 
dently for  the  highest  good  of  the  people  to 
whom  it  was  made  ;  and  in  this  book  there 
is  what  claimes  to  be  a  record  of  the  "  Ever- 
lasting Gospel"  as  it  was  delivered   to  a 
people   other    than    those  of   the    tribe  of 
Judah,  together  with  a  history  of  the  works 
and   worship   of  that  same  people.      The 
second  position  to  a  proper  case  is   made 
then  in  that,  the  message  it  claims  to  bear 
is  a  good  and  proper  one. 


3.  The  object  in  delivering  the  work  to 
the  world  as  borne  out  upon  its  face  is  a 
right  and  proper  one.  To  show  this  object 
I  will  read  from  the  book  itself.  I  have  in 
my  hands  a  reprint  of  the  third  American 
edition.  Would  read  from  the  original  copy 
of  the  book  which  I  also  present  to  you,  but 
this  edition  which  I  have  used  I  am  more 
accustomed  to  and  hence  use  it  for  the  sake 
of  rapidity  in  my  work.  The  two  editions 
are  emphatically  the  same  however,  except 
as  to  a  few  typographical  and  gramatical 
errors  that  evidently  crept  in,  in  the  copy  ing 
and  printing  of  the  work  and  from  which 
I  might  say,  no  book  is  exempt.  It  is  some- 
times given  out  that  there  have  been 
changes  made  in  the  work  since  its  first 
publication.  This  I  deny  as  to  anything 
material  whatever.  The  only  thing 'claim- 
ed as  a  material  change  by  any  candid 
critic  is  in  the  inscription  page,  the  first 
copy  reading,  "Joseph  Smith,  Author  and 
Proprietor,"  whereas  in  subsequent  editions 
he  is  simply  the  "  translator."  By  examin- 
ing the  first  page  of  the  original,'  however, 
I  find  that  he  is  set  out  there  as  the  "  trans- 
lator," and  in  the  preface  to  the  original  he 
is  clearly  and  emphatically  set  forth  as  the 
translator  only,  so  far  as  his  work  in  the 
matter  is  concerned,  and  hence  it  was  not 
possible  to  have  misled  any  reader  by  the 
words  "Author  and  Proprietor,"  as  they 
there  appeared.  But  it  will  be  brought  out 
more  fully  as  we  proceed  as  to  how  this 
came  to  be  placed  on  the  inscription  and  for 
the  present  I  leave  the  matter  The  object 
of  the  book.  I  read  from  the  title  page: — 

"Wherefore  it  Is  an  abridgment  of  the  record  of 
'the  people  of  Nephi,  and  also  of  the  i.aminites; 
'  *  *  *  An  abridgment  taken  from  the  Hook 
'of  Ether:  also,  which  is  a  record  of  ihe  people  of 
'Jared;  who  were  scattered  tttthe  time  the  Lord  eon- 
'founded  the  language  of  the  people,  when  they  were 
1  building  a  tower  to  get  to  heaven:  Which  In  to  show 
'nnto  the  remnant  of  the  house  of  Israel  what  great 
'things  the  Lord  hath  done  for  their  fathers;  and  that 
'they  may  know  the  covenants  of  the  Lord,  that  they 
'are  not  cast  off  forever;  and  also  t»  the  convincing  of 
'the  Jew  and  Gentile  that  Jesns  is  the  Christ,  the  I-  ter- 
'nal  God,  nvmifesting  himself  unto  all  nations." 
'And  now  if  there  are  faults,  they  are  the  mistake"  of 
'men;  wherefore,  condemn  not  the  things  of  God, 
'that  ye  may  be  found  spotless  at  the  judgment  seat 
'of  Christ." 

And  also  in  the  body  of  the  work  page 
!90,  one  of  the  writers  states  as  follows: — 

And  this  is  thecommandment  which  I  haverecelv- 
'ed;  and  behold  they  shall  come  forth  according  to 
'the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  when  he  -hall  see 
'fit,  in  his  wisdom.  And  behold  they  shall  go  unto 
'the  unbelieving  of  the  Jews;  ai.d  for  this  intent 
'shall  they  go;  that  they  may  be  persuaded  that 
'Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  ;  that 
'  i he  Father  may  bring  about,  through  hK  most  belov- 
'ed,  his  great  and  eternal  purpose-,  in  restoring  the 
'Jews,  or  all  the  house  of  Israel,  to  the  land  of  their 
'inheritance,  which  the  Lord  their  God  hath  given 
'them,  unto  the  fulfilling  of  his  covenant,  and  nlso 
'that  the  seed  of  this  poople  may  more  fully  believe 
'his  gospel,  which  shall  go  forth  unto  them  from  the 
'Gentiles;  for  this  peop'e  shall  be  scattered,  and 
'shall  become  a  dark,  a  filthy,  and  a  loathsome  peo- 
'pie,  beyond  the  dcsciiption  of  that  which  ever  hath 
'been  amongst  us." 

The  object  of  the  work  then  and  the  in- 
troduction of  it  is  in  the  highest  sense  a 
proper  one  and  thus  the  third  fact  entering 
to  made  up  the  prime  facia  case  is  com- 
plete. 


THE  BE,  ADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


4.  In  the  array  of  its  witnesses  the  work 
Is  shown  to  be  fully  entitled  to  a  thorough 
and  unprejudiced  examination. 

First,  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness  ; 
begining  with  the  statement  of  the  boy 
when  but  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  consis- 
tently maintained  by  him  afterwards,  until 
when  in  his  thirty-ninth  year  he  gave  the 
highest  assurance  of  its  correctness  by  reso- 
lutely standing  in  the  gate  of  deatn  itself 
for  the  truth  of  it.  His  full  statement  I 
shall  introduce  in  another  part  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 

Srrond,  The  testimony  of  three  witnesses. 

And  in  presenting  to  you  their  statement 
I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  character  of  their  lives  were  such  sub- 
sequently as  to  fully  attest  the  truth  of  the 
original  testimony.  They  not  only  accepted 
this  knowledge  as  a  part  of  their  lives  re- 
ligously,  but  also  taught  it  to  their  children, 
and  to  their  children's  children.  Two  of 
them  having  borne  the  same  testimony  till 
their  voices  were  sealed  in  death,  and  the 
survivor,  now  under  the  lilies  of  nearly 
eighty  winters,  still  points  all  enquirers  to 
this  his  testimony  as  a  circumstance  in  his 
life's  work  which  was,  and  is,  the  happiest 
of  all,  and  his  has  been  a  well  spent  life. 

This  testimony  they  left  upon  record  not 
only  to  have  its  effect  upon  present  things 
and  associations,  but  also  to  extend  to 
future  generations,  being  the  declared  act 
and  knowledge  of  the  three  with  reference 
to  this  work  under  discussion,  when  unin- 
fluenced by  any  conceivable  sinister  motive, 
or  any  inducement  or  hope  of  reward  what- 
ever, except  the  reward  of  well  doing,  which 
they  expected  only  to  receive  when  they 
should  come  into  the  presence  of  Him  who 
is  cognizant  of  all  the  secret  motives  that 
move  men  to  action. 

The  following  is  their  testimony  :  — 

"Be  it  known  unto  all  nations,  kindr  ds,  tongues, 
"and  people,  unto  whom  this  work  shall  come,  tha, 
"W".  through  ihe  grace  of  God  the  Father,  and  our 
"  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  have  seen  the  platen  which  con- 
"tuin  tiiis  record,  wh  i-h  is  a  record  of  the  people  ol 
"Nephi.  and  also  of  the  Lamanites,  their  brethren, 
'and  also  of  the  people  of  Jared,  \\lio  came  from  the 
'tower  of  which  hath  been  sp..ken;  and  we  aiso  know 
'thfltthey  have  been  translated  by  the  gift  and  power 
'of  God  for  his  voice  hath  dec  are'd  it  unto  us;  where- 
'fore  we  know  of  a  surety,  that  the  work  is  true. 
'  And  we  a  so  testify  that  we  have  seen  the  engravings 
'which  are  upon  the  plates';  and  they  have  been 
'shown  unto  ns  by  the  power  of  God.  aiid  not  of  man. 
'And  we  declare  with  words  of  soberness,  that  an 
'  aii'.'el  of  God  came  down  trom  heaven  and  he  brought 
1  and  laid  before  our  eyes,  that  u  e  beheld  and  saw  the 
'plates  and  the  engravings  thereon;  and  we  know 
'that  it  is  by  the  grace  of  God  the  Father,  and  our 
'Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  beheld  and  bare  record 
'that  the.,e  things  are  true;  and  it  is  marvel*  us  in  our 
'eyes,  nevertheless,  the  voice  of  t  e  Lord  commanded 
'us  that  we  slv>ul  .  b<  ar  record  of  it;  Wherefore,  to  be 
'obedient  unto  the  cominan  ments  of  (J.id,  wo  bear 
'testimony  of  these  things.  And  we  know  that  if  we 
are  fa  thful  in  Chri.-t,  we  shall  rid  our  garments  of 
'the  i  lood  of  nil  men.  and  be  found  spoil  ss  befor--  the 
'judgment  seat  of  Chi  ist,  and  sln.ll  dwell  with  him 
'eternally  In  the  heavens.  And  ihe  honor  lie  to  :he 
'Father,  and  Sou,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  oue 
'  " 


Ameii. 


"OLIVER  COWDFRY,* 
"  DAVID  WHITMER." 
"MARTIN  HAI:K:S." 


Third,  The  testimony  of  eight  witnesses. 

Like  the  three  before  referred  to,  thes*e 

were  men  who  confessed  there  belief  in  the 


authenticity  of  the  work,  by  afterwards 
making  it  a  part  of  their  faith,  and  trans- 
mitting their  testimony  unimpaired  to  their 
posterity.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"Be  it  known  unto  all  nations  kindreds,  tongues,  and 
"people,  unto  whom  this  work  shall  come,  that  Joseph 
"Smith,  Jr.,  the  translator  of  this  woik,  has  shown 
"unto  ns  the  plates  of  which  hath  been  spoken,  which 
"have  the  appearance  of  gold;  and  ns  mmy  of  the 
"leaves  as  the  said  Smith  has  translated  we  did  handle 
"with  our  hands;  and  we  al-o  saw  the  engravi:isrs 
"thereon,  all  of  which  has  the  appearance  f  ancient 
"work,  and  of  curious  workmanship  And  this  we 
"bear  record  with  words  of  soberness,  that  the  said 
'Smith  ha«  shown  unto  us,  (or  w  hav  seen  and 
'hefted,  and  know  of  a  surety,  that  the  said  Smith  has 
'got  the  plates  of  which  we  have  spoken.  And  we 
'give  onr  names  unto  the  worl  I  to  witness  unto  the 
'wo'ld  that  which  we  hav  seen;  and  we  lie  not.  God 
'bearing  witn  ssodt."  Signed. 

"Christian  Wh  tmer,  "Hiram  Page, 

"Jacob  Whitmer,  Joseph  -mith,  Senior. 

4  Pet-T  \Vh:tmer,  Junior,          Hyrnm  Smi'h, 
"John  Whitmer.-  Samuel  H.  Smith. 

To  support  the  element  relating  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  work  comes  to  us  I 
have  now  introduced  the  positive  declara- 
tions of  twelve  witnesses,  a  sufficient  num- 
ber to  maintain  any  c  u<e  to  be  contested 
before  courts  of  justice;  and  in  things  re- 
lating to  the  divine  being  and  religion  it 
cannot  be  said  truthfully  that  the  rule 
would  require  more.  In  the  introduction 
of  the  religion  of  Christ  in  the  first  centuiy 
of  what  is  termed  the  Christian  era,  a  sin- 
gle  witness  first  made  known  the  proclama- 
tion ;  and  the  people  to  whom  the  witness 
was  sent  were  required  to  properly  con- 
sider and  examine  the  message,  although 
the  witness  himself  by  reason  of  different 
habits  and  a  different  life  to  that  approved 
by  many  of  the  people,  was  considered 
possessed  with  an  evil  Spirit.  Yet  it  is 
said  of  him  in  the  first  chapter  of  John: 
"There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose 
"name  was  John.  The  same  came  for  a 
"witness,  to  bear  witness  of  the  Light,  that 
"all  men  through  him  might  believe." 
This  was  the  only  witness  in  fact  of  the 
great  mission  of  Jesus  until  the  time  when 
God  gave  a  revelation  to  Peter,  and  yet 
Jesus  says  of  John's  work:  "But  the 
"Pharisees  and  lawyers  rejected  the  council 
"of  God  against  themselves,  being  iiot 
"baptized  of  him."  Luke  7  :  30. 

The  twelve  witnesses  whose  testimony  I 
have  now  introduced  in  their  work  are 
similiar  to  those  raised  up  to  bear  testimony 
of  the  things  declared  and  done  in  the  first 
century  ;  and  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  com- 
pare testimonies  it  comes  with  equal  weight 
of  that  which  has  supported  any  divine 
message  in  any  time  or  age.  The  apostle 
Peter  says  with  reference  to  the  testimony 
to  the  work  in  his  ministry  :  "And  we  are 
"witnesses  of  all  things  which  he  did  both 
"in  the  land  of  the  Jews,  and  in  Jerusalem  ; 
"whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree: 
"Him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and 
"showed  him  openly;  Not  to  all  the  peo- 
"ple,  but  unto  witnesses  chosen  before  of 
"God,  even  to  us,  who  did  eat  and  drink 
"with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead." 
Acts,  10:  39,  41. 

It  is  sometimes  objected  that  the  plates 
which  are  said  to  have  been  preserved  by 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


the  immediate  power  of  God,  kept  that 
they  might  not  be  destroyed  but  yet  fill  a 
purpose  in  the  world  of  instructing  it  in 
things  pertaining  to  the  divine  life,  were 
not  shown  to  all  people.  The  same  objec- 
tion has  been  made  time  and  again  with 
reference  totheNew  Testaments  foundation 
evidence.  That  Jesus  did  not  show  him- 
self to  the  people  after  his  resurection  in 
order  to  make  them  believe,  but  to  a  few 
"chosen  witnesses." 

The  objection  is  a  futile  one  in  the  mind 
of  any  person  who  understands  anything  of 
the  essence  and  faith  peculiar  to  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  and  the  means  adopted  by 
Jesus  himself  of  establishing  it  among  the 
people. 

But  I  am  not  left  to  the  twelve  witnesses; 
the  thousands  who  have  since  attested  the 
divine  character  of  the  work  upon  the  inde- 
pendent knowledge  they  themselves  have 
attained  to,  may  be  brought  and  marshalled 
as  a  living  host  testifying  to  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  claim. 

All  of  these,  however,  I  have  referred  to 
simply  to  substantiate  my  claim  that  in 
the  presentation  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  to 
the  world  a  prima  facie  case  of  its  divine 
authenticity  is  in  every  respect  complete. 
It  claims  to  have  come  from  the  right 
source ;  the  message  it  claims  to  bear  is  a 
proper  one ;  the  object  of  the  message  and 
the  object  of  its  introduction  are  proper ; 
and  now  the  array  of  witnesses  to  that 
message  is  found  all  that  can  reasonably  be 
asked. 

It  is  truly  entitled  to  an  investigation 
then,  and  with  your  attention,  I  at  once 
proceed  to  unfold  the  evidences  relating  to 
its  divine  character,  by  which  you  and  all 
thinking  people  must  determine  for  your- 
selves. 

There  is  an  avenue  of  knowledge  open  to 
this  work  that  is  peculiar  to  it,  and  the 
doctrine  taught  by  Christ  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  only.  In  the  7th  chapter 
and  16th  and  17th  verses  of  John's  gospel  it 
is  recorded:  "Jesus  answered  them,  and 
"said,  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  his 
41  that  sent  me.  If  any  man  will  do  his  will, 
11  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it 
"  be  of  God  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself." 

In  this  record  which  I  hold  in  my  hand 
(the  Book  of  Mormon)  occurs  a  sentiment 
very  much  the  same  as  found  in  this  in- 
struction of  Jesus  ;  and.  singular  as  it  may 
seem,  these  are  the  only  two  works  pub- 
lished to  the  world  that  have  boldly  claim- 
ed that  the  truth  or  falsity  of  their  state- 
ments might  be  known  by  each  person  who 
would  go  to  the  Creator  of  all  and  do  his 
will.  I  read  from  page  544 : 

"And  when  ye  shall  receive  these  thing's,"  (con- 
"tallied  in  the  book  under  di&cnsiinn),  I  would  exhort 
"you  ihat  ye  would  ask  God.  ihe  eternal  Father,  in 
"the  name  of  (Jhrist,  if  these  things  are  nut  true;  and 
"if  ye  shall  ask  with  a  sincere  heart,  with  real  intent, 
"hiiving  faith  in  Christ,  he  will  mnnifi-si  the  truth  of 
"it  iiiito  you,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  t>y 
"the  p  wt-r  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ye  may  know  the  truth 
"of  all  tiling*.  And  whatsoever  t hi:  K  1*  Rood,  IK  just 
"and  tiue:  wherefore,  nothing  that  is  pood  deuieth 
"the  Christ  but  acknowledged  that  he  is." 

JRemember,  my  friends,  you  are  not  asked 


to  first  accept  the  book  as  true,  nor  to  do 
those  things  commanded  in  the  book  — but 
the  will  of  God ;  if  you  are  in  doubt,  sim- 
ply go  aside  and  pray,  with  a  sincere  heart 
and  honest  purpose,  and  the  statement  is 
made  fearlessly,  and  without  regard  to  the 
fact  that  if  it  was  a  deception  upon  the 
people  it  might  be  at  once  detected  by  the 
first  honest  enquirer  who  should  go  before 
the  Lord,  for  it  says :  "  If  ye  shall  ask 
"with  a  sincere  heart,  with  real  intent, 
"having  faith  in  Christ,  he  will  manifest 
"  the  truth  of  it  unto  you,  by  the  power  of 
"  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  statement  is  not 
that  of  a  cunning  deceiver,  but  certainly  of 
a  person  who  has  absolute  confidence  in  the 
cause  which  he  represented. 

I  am  a  believer  in  the  Bible.  I  am  ready 
at  all  times  to  come  forward  and  stand  in 
defense  of  the  divine  authenticity  of  its 
claim.  But,  while  I  am  a  believer  in  the 
Bible,  I  am  at  the  same  time  equally  a  be- 
liever in  the  divine  authenticity  of  the 
record  that  was  given  to  the  people  who 
lived  upon  this  continent.  And  I  believe 
that  its  truth  can  be  proven  to  the  world, 
whether  attacked  by  a  professor  of  religion, 
theologian  of  whatever  rank,  or  the  most 
gifted  skeptic. 

Believing  this,  and  that  the  evidences  of 
such  proof  are  susceptible  of  demonstra- 
tion, I  may  truly  say  that  I  stand  up  in  the 
effort  to  defend  it  to-night,  as  a  work  that 
has  been  committed  to  man  by  Jehovah 
himself,  and  that  my  reward  for  so  doing 
will  be  the  reward  of  all  those  who  shall 
"  have  kept  the  word  of  God."  Taking  up 
the  record  as  it  has  been  presented  to  the 
world  and  examining  it,  I  find  that  in  hold- 
ing forth  its  truths  to 'the  world,  I  make  no 
attack,  either  directly  or  by  implication, 
upon  the  Christian  religion.  I  make  no  at- 
tack upon  the  Bible.  I  make  no  attack 
upon  anything  that  people  should  believe 
in,  and  that  they  do  believe  in  and  accept, 
if  they  believe  in  and  accept  the  sacred 
scriptures.  But  I  hold  forth  a  work  con- 
firmative of  the  truths  revealed  in  the  Bi- 
ble, and  containing  a  record  also  in  its  com- 
pleteness of  the  gospel  set  forth  in  the  Bi- 
ble, and  evidently  prepared  of  the  Lord  as 
a  means  in  his  hand  to  stay  the  tide  of  infi- 
delity which  he  must  have  foreknown  would 
come  rolling  in  like  a  flood  to  destroy  his 
work.  And  this  record  not  only  being  sus- 
ceptible of  clear  proof  from  the  Bible,  but 
also  from  the  scientific  developments  of  the 
age  and  discoveries  in  archeology  made 
since  the  publication  of  the  book,  it  is,  as  I 
firmly  believe,  notwithstanding  the  warfare 
against  it  since  the  first  communication  of 
the  light  to  the  boy  in  1823,  destined  to  yet 
become  one  of  the  most  important  factors 
in  the  evangelization  of  the  human  race. 

If  the  work  is  a  good  one  its  teachings 
and  principles  will  be  good  : — 

"For  every  tree  is  known  by  his  own  fruit.  For  of 
"tho-ns  men  do  not  gather  figs,  nor  of  a  bramble  bush 
"gather  they  grapes.  A  good  man  out  of  tne  good 
"treasure  of  his  heart  bringeih  loith  that  which  is 
"good  :  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  tr  -asure  of  his 
"Wart  biingfth  forth  that  which  is  evil:  for  of  the 
"abundance  of  the  heart  his  mouth  spt-aketh  "  Luke 
6:  44  and  45. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


So  it  must  prove  of  this  work  whether 
written  by  men,  or  indicted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  through  them  from  time  to  time.  To 
show  you  what  its  teachings  are  I  will  read 
a  few  specimen  paragraphs,  which  I  claim 
are  in  perfect  keeping  with  all  the  teach- 
ings of  the  book  ;  and  if  they  are  not  I  shall 
expect  my  opponent  during  the  discussion 
to  point  out  and  read  to  you  others  of  a  con- 
trary character.  And  if  any  of  the  audi- 
ence think  they  can  find  something  con- 
trary to  the  teachings  that  I  shall  read,  I 
want  you  to  buy  a  book  and  make  the  ex- 
amination for  yourselves  as  a  couple  of  gen- 
tlemen did  to-day,  who  were  not  afraid  to 
examine.  Page  99. 

"And,  again,  the  Lord  God  hath  commanded  that 
"men  should  not  mu'der;  that  they  should  not  lie; 
"that  they  should  not  steal ;  that  they  should  not  lake 
"the  name  of  ihe  Lord  th  ir  God  inviiin;  that  they 
"should  not  envy  ;  that  ihey  should  not  have  malice  ; 
"that  they  should  not  contend  one  with  another;  that 
"they  should  not  commit  whoredoms;  tnd  that  they 
"should  do  none  of  these  t  ings  ;  for  whoso  doeth  them, 
"shall  perish;  for  m-ne  of  these  iniquities  come  of  the 
"Lord ;  for  he  doeth  that  which  is  good  among  the 
"children  of  men ;  and  he  doeth  nothing  save  it  be 
"plain  unto  the  children  of  me  • ;  and  he  In  viteth  them 
"alto  come  unto  him  and  partake  of  his  goodness; 
"and  he  <le  lieth  none  that  come  unto  him,  black  and 
"white,  bo  d  and  free,  male  and  female;  and  he  re- 
"membereth  the  heathen,  and  all  are  alike  unto  God, 
"both  Jew  and  Gentile." 

Page  242,  of  the  same  record. 

"And  now  my  brethren,  T  wish  from  the  Inmost  part 
"of  my  heart,  yea,  with  great  anxiety,  even  unto  pain, 
"that  ye  would  hearken  unto  my  words,  and  cast  off 
"your  sins,  arid  not  procriMinate  the  day  of  your 
"repentance;  but  that  ye  would  humble  yourselves 
"before  the  Lord,  and  '-all  on  his  holy  name,  and  watch 
"and  pray  continually,  that  ye  may  not  be  tempted 
"above  that  which  ye  can  bear,  and  thus  be  led  by  the 
"Holy  Spirit,  becoming  humble,  meek,  submissive, 
"patient,  full  of  love  and  all  long  suffering;  having 
"hiith  in  the  Lord;  having  a  hope  that  ye  shall  re- 
"ceive  eternal  life;  ha\ing  the  love  of  God  always  in 
"your  hearts,  that  ye  maybe  lifted  np  at  the  last'day, 
"and  enter  into  his  rest;  and  may  the  Lord  grant  unto 
"you  repentance  that  ye  may  not  bring  down  his 
"wrath  upon  you,  that  ye  may  not  be  bound  down  by 
"the  chains  of  hell,  that  ye  may  not  suffer  the  becoud 
"death." 

Also,  paragraph  8,  page  249. 

"Kow  those  priests  who  did  go  forth  among  the 
"people,  did  preach  against  nil  lying,  and  deneivings, 
"and  envyings,  and  strifes,  a. id  malice  and  revilings, 
"and  stealing,  robbing,  plundering,  murdering,  com- 
"milling  adultery,  and  all  manner  of  la*civiousness, 
"cryng  that  these  things  ought  not  so  to  be;  hold -ng 
"forth  things  which  must  shortly  come;  yea  holding 


"f  >rth  the  coming  of  the  Pon  of  God,  his  suffering  and 
"death,  and  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead." 

Again  from  the  instruction  on  page  224, 
paragraph  4. 

"  And  now  my  beloved  brethren,  I  have  said  these 
"thii.gs  unto  you,  that  I  might  H waken  yon  to  a  sense 
"of  your  duty  to  <iod,  that  ye  may  walk  blameless 
"  before  him  ;  that  ye  may  walk  after  the  holy  order  of 
"  God.  af  er  which  ye  have  been  received.  AIM  now  I 
"'v  onld  that  ye  shou'd  be  hum  le.  and  be  submissive, 
'and  gentle;  easy  to  be  entreated  ;  full  of  p  "ienreund 
'  long  suffering  ;  being  temperate  in  all  things  ;  being 
'diligent  in  keeping  the  commandments  of  God  at  all 
'  times;  asking  for  whatsoever  things  ye  stand  in 
'need,  botli  spiritual  and  temporal;  always  returning 
•  thanks  unto  God  for  whatsoever  thi  'gs  ye  do  receive, 
'and  see  that  ye  have  faith,  hope  and  charity,  and 
'then  ye  will  always  abound  in  good  works;  and  may 
'the  Lord  bless  you,  and  keep  y  ur  garments  spotless, 
'that  ye  may  at  last  be  brought  to  sit  down  with 
'Abraham.  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  the  holy  prophe'8 
'who  have  been  ever  since  the  world  began,  having 
'  your  garments  spotless,  even  as  th' ir  garments  are 
'spotless  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  to  go  no  more  out." 

Such  are  the  teachings  of  the  book  that 
claims  to  have  been  written  by  good  men 
and  prophets  as  directed  of  the  F,ord,  to 
show  unto  future  generations  the  dealings 
of  our  heavenly  Father  with  peoples  other 
than  the  tribe  ofJudah.  And  here  I  pro- 
pound a  question  for  my  opponent  and  each 
one  of  you  to  answer.  Why  is  it,  that 
since  the  object  of  the  work  and  the  char- 
acter of  its  teachings  are  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  object  and  teachings  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  Scriptures,  and  that 
no  person  can  be  a  believer  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  unless  he  also  believes  the  Bible, 
that  persons  who  claim  to  believe  in  the 
Bible  and  are  called  Christians,  and  many 
who  are  Christians  too,  have  been  found 
fighting  against  this  same  book?  Why  is 
it  they  fight  against  it  since  Jesus  himself 
has  said  :  "An  evil  tree  can  not  bring  forth 
good  fruit?"  I  wish  the  negative  of  the 
proposition  under  discussion  to  answer 
these  questions  ;  and  to  candidly  and  care- 
fully peruse  the  work  and  point  out  every 
evil  thing,  or  any  evil  thing,  or  principle 
taught  therein  to  this  audience  so  that  you 
may  judge  for  yourselves  of  the  fact,  wheth- 
er a  man  cannot  accept  the  Book  of  Mormon 
as  of  divine  origin,  endorse  its  teachings, 
and  at  the  same  time  be  a  Christian  man  iii 
the  truest  and  highest  sense  of  that  term. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S   OPENING    SPEECH. 


MODERATORS,  LATHES  AND 
GENTLKMKN: — To  render  such  a  discussion 
as  this  necessary,  there  must  be  a  difference 
of  views  between  the  parties.  There  is  such 
difference  between  my  opponent  and  myself. 
He  and  his  people  teach,  I.  That  mankind 
needed  new  revelations,  in  addition  to 
those  in  the  Bible,  when  Joseph  Smith 
pretended,  in  the  book  of  Mormon  and  other 
pretended  revelations,  to  give  new  revela- 
tions to  the  world.  II.  That  in  the  book  of 
Mormon  and  other  pretended  revelations, 
Joseph  Smith  did  give  to  the  world  new 
revelations,  in  addition  to  those  in  the 
Bible.  III.  That  Joseph  Smith  was  a  true 
prophet  of  God.  I  believe,  I.  That  in  the 
New  Testament,  God  perfected  and  com- 
pleted his  work  of  revelation  in  a  system 
of  universal  and  eternal  truths,  a  law  of 
universally  applicable  principles  in  the 
Gospel  of  Christ.  That  man  needs  no  addi- 
tional revelations,  and  never  will  need  any. 
for  he  cannot  outgrow  the  universal  and 
eternally  applicable  principles  of  the  Gos- 
pel. II.  That  all  of  the  pretended  reve- 
lations of  Joe  Smith  are  base  frauds  and 
puerile  fabrications.  III.  That  Joe  Smith 
was  an  infamous  and  villainous  deceiver 
and  scoundrel.  To  render  discussion  profit- 
able and  conclusive  in  determining  what  is 
the  truth  in  regard  to  the  issues,  there 
must  be  a  common  standard  of  authority 
that  is  accepted  as  conclusive  authority  by 
both  parties.  There  is  such  a  standard  in 
this  discussion.  The  Israelite  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Christ- 
tian  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  book  of  Mormon  cannot  be  appealed  to 
as  authority  in  this  discussion,  for  the  issue 
is,  "Is  the  book  of  Mormon  worthy  to  be  used 
as  authority?"  Even  if  it  be  found,  in  this 
discussion,  that  it  is  worthy  to  be  used  as 
authority,  because  it  is  of  divine  origin, 
that  would  not  enable  my  opponent  to  use 
it  in  this  discussion,  in  determining  the 
issues  in  this  debate.  All  appeal  to  the 
book  of  Mormon,  as  a  standard  in  this 
debate,  will  be  a  begging  of  the  question, 
or  an  impudent  assumption  of  the  very 
issue  in  debate.  It  fs  the  work  of  each 
disputant  in  a  discussion,  to  show  that  his 
position,  clearly  and  honestly  defined,  har- 
monizes with  a  correct  interpretation  of  this 
commonly  accepted  standard,  and  that  the 
position  of  his  opponent,  clearly  and  hon- 
estly defined,  does  not  harmonize  with  a 
correct  interpretation  and  use  of  this  stand- 
ard. It  is  the  work  of  my  opponent  in  this 
discussion  to  clearly  and  honestly  define 
his  affirmative,  concealing  and  evading 
nothing,  using  no  equivocation  or  pettifpg- 

fiug,  and   then   to  show  that  his  position 
hus  defined,  harmonizes  with  a  fair  inter- 


pretation and  use  of  the  Scriptures.  It  \9 
my  work,  if  my  opponent  does  not  define 
his  affirmative  clearly  and  honestly — if  he 
attempts  to  conceal  or  evade  the  real  teach- 
ing of  his  system,  by  equivocation,  or  pet- 
tifogging, to  expose  such  chicanery  and  to 
show  what  are  the  real  teachings  of  his 
system,  and  then  to  show  that  the  teach- 
ings of  his  system,  fairly  and  clearly  stated, 
do  not  harmonize  with  a  correct  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures. 

There  are  three  questions  to  be  settled. 
I.  What  are  the  teachings  of  my  opponent's 
system,  when  clearly  and  honestly  stated, 
without  concealment  or  equivocation.  II. 
What  do  the  Scriptures,  when  correctly 
interpreted,  teach  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  his  system.  III.  Do  the  Scriptures, 
when  clearly  and  fairly  interpreted,  har- 
monize with  a  clear  and  honest  statement 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  system  of  my  oppo- 
nent. There  is  no  sense  in  our  spending 
time  in  talking  about  what  we  both  accept. 
Nor  in  caviling  over  what  is  not  in  dispute. 
Let  us  then  determine,  as  far  as  may  be,  in 
what  do  we  agree;  concerning  what  do  we 
disagree;  what  conclusions  should  we  draw 
from  those  things  in  which  we  agree,  con- 
cerning those  things  in  which  we  disagree. 
Whether  the  position  of  my  opponent  in 
regard  to  the  things  in  which  we  agree  is 
in  harmony  with  his  position  in  regard  to 
those  things  in  which  we  disagree.  Let  us 
make  the  issues  as  few,  as  brief  and  as  clear 
as  possible.  I.  My  opponent  and  myself 
both  believe  that  the  Israelite  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures, of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Christ- 
ian Sacred  Scriptures,  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, were  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  that  they  are  therefore  of  divine  origin, 
and  authority — a  revelation  from  God  to 
man.  We  differ  "concerning  "The  Book  of 
Mormon."  My  opponent  believes  that  it 
also  was  given  by  inspiration  of  God  and 
that  it  is  also  of  divine  origin  and  authority 
a  revelation  from  God  to  man,  containing 
"the  fullness  of  the  Gospel,"  and  that  it 
stands  related  to  the  New  Testament,  as 
that  does  to  the  Old-andis  as  much  superior 
to  it.  I  believe  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is 
a  base,  puerile  fabrication,  and  a  wicked 
fraud. 

II.  We  both  believe  that  God  has  made 
revelations  to  man,  through  men  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Spirit — through  angelic  mes- 
sengers— and  through  his  Son  Jesus  the 
Christ.  My  opponent  believes  that  he  has 
spoken  to  men  through  Joseph  Smith,  and 
men  who  have  accepted  him  as  a  prophet 
of  God,  and  that  God  has  through  such 
persons,  given  revelations  to  men.  I  belive 
that  Joseph  Smith  was  a  wicked,  contemp- 
tible impostor,  and  that  all  who  have  pre- 
tended to  speak  by  inspiration,  in  this  age 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE 


are  either  hypocritical  impostors  or  self- 
deluded  visionaries.  III.  We  both  believe 
that,  in  the  apostolic  age,  God  spoke  to 
men  through  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and 
through  persons  to  whom  the  apostles 
imparted  supernatural  gifts,  by  the  impo- 
sition of  their  hands.  My  opponent  believes, 
that,  in  the  apostolic  age,  others  than  those 
to  whom  the  apostles  imparted  superna- 
tural gifts  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands, 
enjoyed  those  gifts.  He  believes  also  that 
those  gifts  were  an  all  important  element 
of  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  that  they 
were  to  continue,  until  the  end  of  time,  in 
the  church.  That  those  gifts  can  be  enjoyed  • 
now.  That  they  should  be  enjoyed  now. 
That  the  condition  of  the  church  where 
those  gifts  are  not  enjoyed  is  that  of  apos- 
tasy— a  dead  church.  *  He  believes  that 
those  gifts  can  be  imparted  now  by  the 
imposition  of  hands,  of  persons  now  living. 
That  they  are  so  imparted  and  enjoyed  in 
his  organization.  That  all  believers  who 
do  not  enjoy  those  gifts  are  in.  an  apostate 
condition. 

I  believe  that  those  gifts  were  to  exist 
O]TTy~3uilng  the  apostolic  age.  That  it  was 
the  will  of  God  that  they  should  cease, 
when  the  word  of  God  was  completed  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  that,  as  it  was  his 
will  that  they  should  cease  then,  they  did 
cease.  That  in  the  apostolic  age,  those 
gifts  were  never  enjoyed  by  any,  except 
those  to  whom  an  apostle  imparted  them 
by  the  Imposition  of  his  hands.  That  no 
one  but  an  apostle  could,  or  ever  did  impart 
those  gifts.  That  they  never  descended  to 
a  third  person."  TJiat  the  power  to  impart 
those  gifts  was  the  "  sigh  of  apostleship." 
Tji.a_t  .when  the  last  person,  to  whom  an 
apostle  imparted  those  gifts,  died,  they 
ceased  from  earth.  That  such  was  God's 
will  and  law.  Also  that  the  condition  of 
the  church,  when  the  best  of  those  gifts 
were  enjoyed,  was  the  formative,  the  child- 
like condition  of  the  church.  That  the 
condition  of  the  church,  under  the  control 
of  i(  the  perfect  law  of  liberty,"— "of  that 
which  is  perfect,"  the  completed  word  of 
God,  is  as  much  superior  to  the  condition 
of  the  church,  when  the  best  of  these  gifts 
were  enjoyed,  as  the  condition  of  the  world, 
when  God  ceased  from  creation — after  crea- 
ting man,  is  superior  to  the  period,  when 
l>y  miracles  of  creation,  he  was  preparing 
for  man.  Or  as  the  condition  of  the  full 
grown  man  is  superior  to  that  of  the  unde- 
veloped child.  Or  as  the  condition  of  our 
country  under  our  completed  constitution, 
and  government  in  accordance  with  it,  is 
superior  to  the  condition  of  our  nation, 
while  the  constitutional  convention  was  in 
session,  framing  the  constitution. 

I  am  careful  to  define  and  elaborate  these 
differences,  because  this  is  the  key  note  to 
the  whole  discussion.  This  is  the  crucial 
issue  in  this  debate.  My  opponent  bases 
his  claim  that  Joseph  Smith  was  a 
true  prophet  of  God;  that  the  Book  of 
Mormon  was  given  by  inspiration  of  God. 
that  it  "  contains  the  fulness  of  the  Gospel  " 
— that  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  other  pre- 


tended revelations  stand  related  to  the 
New  Testament,  as  the  New  Testament 
stands  related  to  the  Old  Testament,  that 
his  people  possesses  these  miraculous  pow- 
ers and  spiritual  gifts,  on  a  claim  that  the 
promises  of  Joel  and  other  prophets,  of 
John  the  Baptist,  of  Jesus,  of  Peter  and 
the  apostles,  concerning  spiritual  gifts, 
were  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  church  in  all 
ages.  If  my  position,  that  these  promises 
refer  only  to  the  apostolic  age,  and  were 
enjoyed  only  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  that 
they  were  to  remain  only  until  the  Word 
of  God  was  completed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.— that  in  the  New  Testament,  God 
completed  this  miraculous  work,  and  the 
exercise  of  spiritual  gifts,  in  a  perfect  re- 
velation of  a  complete  system  of  universally 
applicable  and  eternal  truths  and  princi- 
ples be  true,  it  utterly  demolishes  the  claim 
of  my  opponent,  by  showing  that  revela- 
tions, in  addition  to  those  in  the  Bible,  are 
needless,  and  contrary  to  the  teachings  of 
God's  Word,  and  therefore  his  Book  of 
Mormon  and  pretended  revelations  are  base 
frauds,  and  Joe  Smith  a  vile  impostor. 

We  both  believe  that  all  followers  of 
Christ,  should  be  united  ai.d  stand  on  the 
divine  platform,  laid  down  for  such 
union,  in  Ephesians.  IV.  (A.)  One  God 
the  Father.  I  shall,  in  the  right  place, 
prove  that  the  teachings  of  the  system  of 
my  opponent,  in  regard  to  the  one  God, 
are  gross  materialism  and  idolatry.  (B.) 
One  Lord  ;  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ;  the  Christ, 
the  only  begotten  Son  of  God — the  only 
Divine  Propnet,  or  source  of  all  teaching 
in  religion — the  only  Divine  Priest,  or  sac- 
rifice and  atonement  for  the  sins  of  all  men 
— the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man 
— the  only  Divine  King, — the  only  source  of 
all  law  in  religion,  and  the  only  one  whose 
commands  we  are  to  obey,  in  religion.  I 
shall,  in  the  right  place,  expose  the  gross 
sensualism  of  my  opponent's  system  in  re- 
gard to  the  origin  and  character  of  the 
Son  of  God.  My  opponent  claims  that 
Joe  Smith  was  a  prophet  of  God,  whose 
teachings  are  to  be  obeyed,  accepted  as 
"  the  fullness  of  the  gospel,"  and  as  much 
superior  to  those  of  Jesus,  as  the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  are  superior  to  those  of  the  proph- 
ets of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  whose  com- 
mands are  as  much  superior  to  the  New 
Testament,  as  the  New  Testament  is  to  the 
Old  Testament.  I  believe  that  Joe  Smith 
was  a  base  imposter,  a  wicked  deceiver, 
whose  silly  fabrications  should  be  despised 
as  contemptible  frauds.  (C.)  One  Holy 
Spirit,  who  inspired  the  men  whose  in- 
spired acts  and  utterances  are  recorded  in 
the  Bible.  My  opponent  believes  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  inspired  Joe  Smith,  and  others 
who  have  accepted  him  as  a  true  prophet 
of  God,  and  that  he  inspires  men  now,  I 
believe  that  all  inspiration  and  miraculous 
powers  ceased  in  the  apostolic  age,  having 
accomplished  their  purpose,  in  giving  to 
mankind,  a  completed  revelation  of  genera] 
and  universally  applicable  truths ;  Mid 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  now  influences  ir  MI, 
in  the  only  way  in  which  one  iutellig*  v» 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


can  exert  a  moral  influence  over  another, 
that  is  through  the  truth  contained  in  his 
utterances  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
through  the  teaching  that  'is  in  accordance 
with  the  truths  revealed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  Scriptures. 

(D.)  The  one  faith— the  faith— the  teach- 
ing— the  Word  of  God, — the  scriptures — 
"  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints." 
My  opponent  would  add  to  this  "  one  faith  " 
delivered  to  the  Saints — to  God's  Word, 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  other  pretended 
revelations  of  Joe  Smith,  and  of  others 
who  accept  Joe  Smith  as  a  prophet  of 
God.  I  reject  all  of  these  as  base  fabrica.- 
tions  of  imposters,  or  as  silly  vagaries 
of  fanatical  visionaries.  (E.)  One  baptism 
— immersion  into  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit — into  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  My  opponent  teaches 
these  errors  in  regard  to  baptism.  I.  Bap- 
tism for  the  miraculous  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  II.  That  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  universal  in  the  church,  in  the 
apostolic  age,  and  that  it  can  be  enjoyed 
now,  and  exists  in  his  organization.  III. 
The  farce  of  baptizing  the  living  as  proxies 
for  the  dead.  I  believe  that  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles  only  those  of  the  baptized  re- 
ceived the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  whom  an  apostle  imparted  them 
by  the  imposition  of  his  hands.  I  believe 
also  that  there  were  never  but  two  occasions 
of  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  in  Jerusalem — the  other  at 
the  house  of  Cornelius  in  Csesarea — that 
both  were  miraculous — direct  miracles  from 
Heaven,  and  never  were,  and  never  will  be 
repented.  The  baptism  for  the  dead  I  re- 
gard as  a  farce  resulting  from  a  blunder  in 
regard  to  an  obscure  passage  of  Scripture. 

(F.)  One  hope — remission  of  sins  to  the 
penitent  believer,  who  is  baptized  into 
Christ — union  with  God  and  his  Holy 
Spirit,  so  long  as  the  Christian,  in  a  holy 
life,  makes  his  body  a  fit  temple  for  such 
union  and  such  a  guest;  and  eternal  life  if 
men  are  faithful  unto  death.  My  opponent 
includes  in  this  hope,  miraculous  spiritual 
gifts,  in  this  life,  and  he  debases  the  eter- 
nal hope  into  a  materialistic  sensual 
reigniug  of  Mormons  over  Gentiles,  in  a 
materialistic  sensual  state,  like  the  Para- 
dise of  tne  Mahommedan.  (G.)  One 
body— "The  church  of  God"  or  "The 
church  of  Christ."  Christ  is  the  head 
of  the  body,  and  all  believers  are  living 
stones,  members  in  this  body,  this  tem- 
ple. In  this  church  are  Evanglists  who 
proclaim  the  good  news ;  Overseers  who 
take  care  of  the  flock — Servants  who  min- 
ister unto  the  church  ;  and  members  who 
are  not  called  to  such  work.  My  opponent 
adds  to  this  simple  statement  of  the  New 
Testament  presidents,.councillors,  apostles, 
twelve  apostles,  three  seventies  of  apos- 
tles, traveling  bishops,  presiding  elders, 
quorums,  patriarchs,  seers,  prophets,  pas- 
tors, teachers,  translators,  revelators,  un- 
til not  even  an  inspired  Mormon  knows 
how  many  more,  and  about  one-third  of  the 
men  are  officers  of  some  sort.  He  asserts 


that  all  of  these  should  exercise  miraculous 
powers,  and  divides  them  into  the  Mel- 
chisedec  priesthood,  and  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood, and  tells  us  that  the  Aaronic  priest 
must  be  a  literal  descendant  of  Aaron." 
That  caps  the  climax  of  absurdity. 

(H.)  One  name — "Christian"  —  for  all 
individuals  who  are  followers  of  Christ ; 
and  "Church  of  God"  or  "Church  of 
Christ  "  for  the  one  body  composed  of  these 
followers  of  Christ  or  Christians.  My  op- 
ponent calls  his  people  "  Latter  Day  Saints 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Shades  of  the  apostles 
what  an  Ashdodish  lingo!  He  calls  his 
'organization  "  The  Reorganized  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints."  Where 
in  the  World  of  God  does  he  find  such  a 
rigmarole  as  that?  He  may  find  such  a 
jargon  in  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cove- 
nants, or  Joe  Smith's  Book  of  Abraham, 
but  not  in  the  Scriptures.  Such  an  Ash- 
dodish Babel  is  not  found  in  the  pure 
speech  of  Canaan,  in  God's  word.  Such  is 
a  fair  statement  of  the  points  concerning 
which  we  agree,  and  also  those  concern- 
ing which  we  disagree.  My  opponent 
summarizes  his  teachings  in  his  proposi- 
tion :  "  The  Book  of  Mormon  is  of  divine 
origin  and  entitled  to  the  confidence  of  all 
Christian  people" 

My  first  and  cardinal  objection  to  my  op- 
ponent's position  is  that  the  Bible  teaches 
that  the  work  of  inspiration;  miracles  and 
revelation,  was  completed  in  the  revela- 
tions of  the  Son  of  God,  that  he  give  in 
person,  and  through  his  apostles,  in  tho 
New  Testament,  in  which  there  is  given  to 
mankind,  a  system  of  eternal  truths,  uni- 
versally applicable  principles,  which  man 
can  not  outgrow,  for  which  there  can  be  no 
substitute,  and  to  which  there  can  be  no 
additions.  That  as  inspiration  and  miracle 
had  accomplished  their  work  in  completing 
revelation,  they  ceased  when  the  last  person 
died  to  whom  an  apostle  had  imparted 
spiritual  gifts,  by  the  imposition  of  his 
hands.  If  this  position  be  true,  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  that  such  a  claim  as  my  oppo- 
nent makes  for  his  Book  of  Mormon,  is 
absolutely  impossible.  It  was  not  given, 
or  translated  by  inspiration,  for  the  Bible 
teaches  that  inspiration  and  miraculous 
power  ceased  nearly  1,800  years  before  it 
appeared.  This  is  the  crucial  question,  the 
vital  issue  of  this  discussion.  If  my  posi- 
tion be  Scripturally  true,  my  opponent's 
affirmatives  are  utterly  unscriptural  and 
utterly  untrue,  according  to  what  is  the 
standard  of  truth  in  this  debate.  We  in- 
tend to  hold  our  opponent  right  to  the 
work  on  this  point.  If  he  does  not  meet 
and  overturn  my  position,  his  claim  for  the 
Book  of  Mormon  is  "  as  baseless  as  the 
fabric  of  a  dream." 

The  first  vital  query  then  is  "  What  do 
the  Scriptures  teach  in  regard  to  inspira- 
tion, miracles  and  revelations — in  regard  to 
when  they  first  appeared— their  purpose— 
their  history  and  development— now  long 
they  were  to  continue  ?  What  was  their  pur- 
pose, and  how  long  did  that  purpose  make 
it  necessary  for  them  to  continue  ?  What 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


11 


do  the  Scriptures  teach  in  regard  to  the 
continuance  ol'  inspiration,  miracle  and 
revelation?  And  their  completion  and 
cessation?  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the 
Father  has  spoken,  in  the  hearing  of  man, 
only  three  times.  At  the  baptism  of  Jesus, 
Mathew,  III.  17.  At  the  transfiguration. 
Mathew,  XVlI,  5.  When  Jesus  prayed 
and  the  multitude  heard  the  answer.  John, 
XII,  28.  On  all  other  occasions,  the  Father 
has  spoken  through  representatives, — the 
Word — the  Christ — the  Holy  Spirit — angels 
Inspired  men.  The  Word  spoke  to  men 
through  angels,  or  through  men  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Word  was  the 
God  of  the  Old  Testament,  John,  I.  Col- 
assians,  I.  Hebrew,  I.  The  Word  the 
God  of  the  Old  Testament  spoke  through 
angels,  Acts,  VII,  "  Ye  received  the  word 
through  the  ministry  of  angels."  Gal.  III. 
"  The  law  was  ordained  through  angels,  by 
the  hand  of  a  mediator"  (Mose's).  While  on 
earth  Christ,  spoke  to  men.  Angels  spoke 
to  men  as  representatives  of  Jehovah,  the 
Word,  and  of  Christ,  after  his  ascension. 
Rev.  I.  "  The  revelation  of  Jesus,  the 
Christ,  which  God  gave  to  him,  to  show  to 
his  servants,  the  things  which  must  short- 
ly come  to  pass,  and  he  sent  his  angels  to 
his  servant  John,  and  made  them  known 
unto  John,  and  John  bear  witness  of  the 
word  of  God."  In  Exodus,  III,  we  read  in- 
terchangeably, "Jehovah  said,"  and  "the 
angels  said,"  showing  that  Jehovah  spoke 
through  his  angels  that  represented  him. 
In  several  places  Jehovah  says,  to  Moses 
through  his  angel  that  represented  him. 
"  I  send  my  angel  before  you.  I  have  put 
my  word  in  his  mouth.  Hear  him,"  etc. 
Isaiah,  LXI,  we  read  that  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation was  givon  by  "  an  angel  of  the  face 
of  Jehovah  "  pi  a  messenger  from  his  pres- 
ence. We  might  illustrate  this  idea  by 
many  other  passages,  but  these  will  suffice, 
for  probably  our  only  dispute  will  be  over 
the  work  of  tho  Holy  Spirit. 

Both  parties  agree  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
inspired  all:  me  n  who  acted,  spoke,  or  wrote 
under  inspirat  on,  from  Adam  to  Malachi; 
that  he  inspirsdall  who  acted,  spoke,  or 
wrote  under  Inspiration  from  Zachariah, 
the  father  of  ."ohn  the  Baptist,  until  the 
last  person  di  M!  to  whom  an  apostle  im- 
parted spirituf  1  gifts,  by  the  inposition  of 
his  hands.  My  opponent  claims  that  the 
Scriptures  teach  that  these  spiritual  gifts 
were  to  remain  in  the  church  until  the  end 
of  time,  that  it  is  the  law  of  God  that  they 
should  now  e::ist,  that  they  do  now  exist 
in  his  organization,  that  as  a  result  of 
euch  existence  of  these  gifts  Joseph  Smith 
was  inspired,  was  a  true  prophet  of  God. 
and  therefore  the  "  Book  of  Mormon," 
that  he  gave  (o  the  world,  is  a  revelation 
from  God.  I  claim  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  these  miraculous  powers  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  were  given  for  a  specific 
purpose,  the  levelation  of  a  plan  of  re- 
demption— thai  they  were  to  exist  until 
that  purpose  was  accomplished  in  complet- 
ing the  New  Testament — that  they  ceased 
\fnen  choy  accomplished  this  purpose,  in 


completing  this  revelation,  in  the  New 
Testament.  I  claim  that  the  law  of  God 
ordains  that  they  were  to  exist  for  a  certain 
purpose,  the  revelation  of  the  scheme  of  re- 
redemption,-  and  they  were  to  continue 
until  that  object  was  accomplished.  The 
purpose  for  which  God  ordained  their  ex- 
istence and  continuance,  has  been  accom- 
plished, in  completing  the  New  Testament; 
and  they  have  ceased,  having  accomplished 
their  object,  and  being  no  longer  necessary. 

The  issue  is  not  one  of  power,  but  of 
fact  and  law.  Not  whether  God  can  im- 
part gifts  now,  but  whether  it  is  his  law 
that  they  should  exist  now.  Or  is  it  his 
law  that  they  should  cease  with  the  apos- 
tolic age,  having  accomplished  their  ob- 
jects. As  a  question  of  fact,  did  Joseph 
Smith  possess  these  powers  ?  Do  his  fol- 
lowers now  possess  them?  Proving  that 
they  can  be  exercised  now,  would  not  prove 
that  Joseph  Smith  possessed  them,  nor 
that  his  followers  do  possess  them.  A 
man  may  be  able  to  practice  law,  but  that 
does  not  prove  that  he  does  so.  The  fact 
that  God  can  impart  such  powers  now,  does 
not  prove  that  he  does  so.  God  can  have 
apples  grow  as  tubers  on  the  roots  of  trees, 
but  that  does  not  prove  that  he  does.  The 
question  of  fact  remains,  "  How  do  apples 
grow  ?  "  The  fact  that  God  imparted  these 
powers  to  persons  in  former  ages,  does  not 
prove  that  he  does  so  now.  God  once 
brought  animals  and  plants  into  existence 
by  miracle  of  direct  creation.  That  does 
not  prove  that  he  does  so  now.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  factj  we  know  that  he  does  not,  but 
that  he  brings  them  into  existence  through 
operation  of  natural  law. 

Let  me  here  expose  the  vital  error  of  my 
opponent's  position,  by  an  illustration. 
God  exerted  his  miraculous  power  in  crea- 
tion, to  prepare  the  way  for  natural  law, 
the  law  of  reproduction,  and  the  world  is 
in  a  higher  and  more  perfect  condition 
under  the  operation  of  natural  law,  than 
when  God  exerted  miraculous  power,  in 
bringing  animals  and  plants  into  being,  by 
creation.  Miraculous  power,  in  creation, 
was  only  temporary,  and  provisional,  and 
exerted  only  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
higher  and  more  perfect,  natural  law.  In 
like  manner,  God  exerted  his  miraculous 
power  in  connection  with  revelation,  only 
to  prepare  the  way  for  the  higher  and  per- 
manent, a  completed  system  of  divine  rev- 
ealed truth,  in  the  completed  word  of  God, 
in  the  completed  New  Testament.  Mirac- 
culous  power  in  revelation,  ceased  when 
that  purpose  was  accomplished ;  just  as 
miraculous  power,  in  creation  ceased  when 
it  had  prepared  for,  and  introduced  the 
higher  and  the  permanent,  the  opera- 
tion of  natural  law.  Miraculous  power  in 
connection  with  revelation,  was  inferior  to 
the  work  of  the  completed  word  of  God, 
just  as  miraculous  power,  in  creation,  was 
inferior  to  the  operation  of  natural  law. 
God  is  in  the  operation  of  his  completed 
word  of  truth,  in  a  higher  and  more  perfect 
manner,  than  he  ever  was  in  the  highest 
exercise  of  miraculous  power,  just  as  he  is 


12 


THE  BE  ADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


In  the  operation  of  natural  law.  in  a  higher 
and  more  perfect  sense,  than  he  ever  was 
in  the  exercise  of  miraculous  power  in 
creation.  In  each  case  the  method  em- 
ployed at  first,  was  provisional  and  tem- 
porary, and  was  employed  only  to  intro- 
duce the  higher  and  permanent,  for  which 
it  prepared  the  way.  There  is  no  evad- 
ing the  conclusion  that  the  operation  of 
natural  law  and  the  influence  of  the  re- 
vealed truths  of  God's  completed  word, 
are  superior  to  the  highest  exercise  of 
miraculous  power,  either  in  creation  or 
revelation. 

We  do  not  remove  God  out  of  nature,  or 
his  word  ;  but  we  show  that,  in  each  case, 
he  acts  in  a  higher  and  more  perfect  man- 
ner. We  do  not  remove  a  single  thing  God 
created,  nor  a  single  truth  of  revelation. 
Miraculous  power  was  not  a  part  of  the 
things  created,  but  the  means  of  creating 
them,  and  ceased  when  that  was  done,  and 
gave  way  to  the  operation  of  a  higher  and 
more  perfect  means  of  accomplishing  the 
same  end.  Miraculous  power  was  not  a  part 
of  the  truths  revealed,  but  the  means  of  re- 
vealing divine  truth,  and  ceased  when  that 
work  was  done,  and  gave  way  to  a  higher  and 
more  perfect  work, and  presence  ot'God,  in  the 
moral  influenceof  the  divine  truths  revealed. 
The  idea  of  my  opponent,  that  the  posses- 
sion of  miraculous  power  is  the  thing  to  be 
desired  above  everything  else,  and  that  the 
condition  of  the  church,  when  it  was  exer- 
cised, was  the  highest  condition  of  the 
church,  and  far  superior  to  its  condition 
now,  when  it  does  not  exist,  and  the  church 
exerts  only  moral  power  resident  in  perfect 
truth,  is  a  contradiction  of  the  Scriptures, 
of  reason,  and  of  fact.  Such  a  state  of  the 
church  was  the  childhood  of  the  church. 
The  exercise  of  such  gifts  was  necessary,  be- 
causeitwasin  its  childhood.  They  were  aids 
to  childhood,  that  ceased  when  the  church 
"laid  aside  such  childish  tilings  "  The 
church  is  now  in  its  manhood,  and  governed 
by  "the  perfect  law  of  liberty"  the  com- 
pleted Word  of  God.  The  moral  power  of 
divine  truth,  appealing  to  reason  and  con- 
science of  men  as  rational  beings,  is  far 
superior  to  miracles,  appealing  to  the  child- 
ish wonder  of  children. 

A  vital  query  is  suggested  here.  How  can 
one  intelligence  influence  another?  How 
can  one  spirit,  the  Holy  Spirit,  influence 
another  spirit — the  spirit  of  man?  Man  can 
influence  his  fellow  man  in  two  ways.  I. 
By  utterances  or  acis  that  convey  ideas  to 
the  minds  of  the  persons  addressed.  This 
is  the  only  moral  power  or  influence  that 
one  spirit  can  exert  on  another.  II.  An 
abnormal  psychological  influence,  called 
mesmerism  or  psychology.  This  is  not  a 
moral  influence  for  it  leaves  the  mind  influ- 
enced no  wiser,  no  better  In  like  manner 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  exerted  two  influences 
over  the  spirit  of  men.  I.  A  miraculous 
influence,  psychologizing  the  spirits  of  men, 
BO  that  they  uttered  the  words  he  wanted 
them  to  utter  ;  or  performed  the  acts  that 
he  wanted  them  to  perform.  II.  The  ordi- 
nary influence,  that  he  has  exerted  on.  the 


minds  of  those  who  heard  or  read  the  utter- 
ances of  those  he  psychologized,  or  saw  01 
read  the  acts  they  performed.  In  the  mirac- 
ulous work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  has  always 
exerted  two  influences.  I.  The  miraculous 
psychological  influence  exerted  on  thehearts 
of  those  inspired  by  which  he  caused  them 
to  do  or  say  what  he  wanted  to  reveal  to 
others.  II.  The  ordinary  and  moral  influ- 
ence that  he  exerted  on  the  minds  of  those 
who  heard  or  read  their  revelations. 

We  desire  now  to  emphasize  a  thought 
that  we  do  not  want  to  be  lost  sight  of  for 
one  moment,  in  the  discussion  ot  the  issues 
before  us.  "The  miraculous  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  never,  in  a  single  instance, 
exerted  one  particle  of  moral  power,  on  the 
spirit  of  the  person  influenced  by  it ;  never 
in  a  single  instance  produced  one  particle 
of  moral  change,  in  the  person  influenced 
by  it."  The  cases  of  Baulam,  Saul  King  of 
Israel,  Jonah  and  Caiaphas  show  that  the 
person  influenced,  often  uttered  what  was 
entirely  opposed  to  his  own  wishes.  That 
he  did  not  know  what  he  would  say  before 
he  was  influenced.  Nor  what  he  was  saying 
when  the  influence  was  upon  him.  When 
the  influence  left  him  he  knew  no  more 
about  the  meaning  of  what  he  had  uttered 
<han  any  other  person,  and  had  to  study  it 
the  same  as  any  other  person.  Peter  says, 
"The  Prophets,  who  prophesied  of  the  good 
that  should  come  unto  you,  sought  and 
searched  dilligently,  what  manner  ol 
time,  and  what  things,  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  that  was  in  them  did  signify,  when 
he  testified  beforehand  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  and  the  glory  that  should  follow." 
The  character  of  Baalam,  Saul,  Caiaphas 
and  Jonah  show  that  this  influence  of  the 
spirit  was  impacted,  sometimes,  regardless 
of  character  to  vile,  rebellious  persons.  That 
it  left  vile  men  just  as  it  found  them.  It 
did  not  change  them  morally,  one  particle. 
We  wish  our  readers  to  remember  these 
facts,  while  weighing  the  question,  whether 
this  influence  was  to  remain  in  the  church. 
As  it  was  not  a  moral  influence,  it  was  not 
to  be  desired,  on  an  account  of  its  moral 
benefits  to  the  person  influenced.  As  it 
produced  no  moral  influence,  except  through 
the  truth  it  revealed,  it  ceased,  when  it  had 
perfected  that  work.  There  can  he  no  rea- 
son why  it  should  exist  in  the  church  when 
revelation  was  completed-  There  is  no 
work  that  the  church  does  now,  or  is  re- 
quired, by  the  Word  of  God  to  perform, 
that  can  be  accomplished  by  this  miracu- 
lous influence,  nor  that  it  can  aid  one  par- 
ticle. 

Let  us  now  trace  the  miraculous  influence 
of  the  spirit  in  the  Gospel  Dispensation. 
Joel  and  other  prophets  promised  a  miracu- 
lous outpouring  of  the  spirit  in  the  last 
days  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  Peter 
declared,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  that  the 
baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  received  by  him 
and  his  brethren  was  a  partial  fulfillment 
of  Joel's  promise.  "This,"  the  baptism 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  he  and  his  brethren 
had  received,  "is  that  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophet  Joel."  That  it  included  the. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


13 


miraculous  powers  that  others  enjoyed  in 
the  apostolic  age.  Peter's  language  has 
not  the  slightest  reference  to  the  ordinary 
influence  of  the  spirit  on  the  Christian, 
when  he  says  :  "Ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit"— the  Holy  Spirit  as  a 

5ift— "for  'the  promise."  What  promise? 
oel's  promise  of  the  miraculous  influence 
of  the  spirit,  "is  to  you  and  your  children, 
and  to  those  that  are  afar  off'."— It  was, 
for  Joel's  promise  was  "to  all  flesh,  even 
as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
Call  how?  By  the  imposition  of  an  apos- 
tle's hands  as  we  shall  show.  John  the 
Baptist  and  our  Saviour  promised  the  bap- 
tism in  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  fulfilled  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  and  at  the  house  of 
Cornelius.  Our  Saviour  promised  that  his 
apostles  should  be  inspired,  when  before 
persecuting  magistrates.  They  were  and 
the  Bible  records,  no  other  instances.  Our 
Saviour  declares:  "that  out  of  those  who 
believe  on  his  name  shall  flow  inspiration 
like  rivers  of  water."  This  included  the 
Baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  that  existed  in  the  apos- 
tolic church.  These  had  not  yet  been 
given. 

In  his  last  lecture  to  his  apostles,  and  to 
no  others,  as  recorded  in  John,  XIII  to 
XVI,  delivered  just  before  crucifixion,  our 
Saviour  told  his  apostles  that  he  would 
leave  them — the  apostles — that  he  would 
send  to  them — the  apostles — the  Comforter 
to  take  his  place  with  them — the  apostles — 
that  the  Comforter  would  reveal  to  their 
minds — the  minds  of  the  apostles — what  he 
had  said  to  them — the  apostles — that  the 
Comforter  would  guide  them — the  apostles— 
into  all  truth — show  them — the  apostles — 
things  to  come,  and  would  take  the  things 
of  the  Father  and  show  them  to  them — the 
apostles.  These  promises  have  not  the 
slightest  reference  to  the  ordinary  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  Christians,  for 
his  work  was  all  miraculous.  These  prom- 
ises apply  to  the  apostles,  and  to  no  others. 
Our  Saviour's  address  was  a  closing  charge 
to  his  apostles,  and  has  no  application  to 
any  other  persons.  It  was  a  promise  that 
they — the  apostles,  should  be  qualified  for 
the  work  that  he  committed  to  their  care — 
committed  to  the  apostles,  and  none  others. 
After  his  resurrection  he  renewed  this 
promise,  when  he  promised  that  his  apos- 
tles should  be  endowed  with  power  from 
on  high.  That  they  should  be  baptized  in 
the  Holy  Spirit. 


Let  us  now  dispose  forever  of  the  promise 
of  the  Baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was 
a  promise.  Not  a  command.  Was  received. 
Not  obeyed.  Christ  was  the  administrator. 
Not  man.  Was  poured  out  from  heaven. 
Not  performed  on  earth  by  man,  on  another 
man.  It  was  promised  as  a  miraculous 
power.  Not  commanded  as  an  ordinance. 
It  was  a  miracle.  Was  always  attended 
with  miracles.  It  always  conferred  miracu- 
lous power.  It  was  not  in  any  name.  It 
was  not  a  memorial,  a  monument,  a  sym- 
bol, a  type,  a  likeness,  a  form,  an  object 
lesson,  setting  forth  any  fact  or  truth.  It 
was  perhaps  the  most  extraordinary  and 
miraculous  event  in  the  Gospel  Dispejjsa- 
tion.  Did  not  and  could  not  become  a  per- 
manent element  in  the  church. 

There  is  only  one  baptism  in  the  church, 
Eph.,  IV,  4.  It  is  a  command.  Men  are  to 
administer  it  to  others.  Men  are  to  obev  i  t. 
It  is  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son"and 
Holy  Spirit.  It  is  in  water.  It  is  a  monu- 
ment of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrection- 
monument  of  the  great  facts  of  the  Gospel, 
a  memorial,  a  type,  a  likeness,  a  symbol,  a 
form,  an  object  lesson  setting  forth  Christ's 
burial  and  resurrection — also  the  sinner's 
burial  to  his  past  sinful  life,  and  his  resur- 
rection to  a  new  life  in  Christ.  It  is  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  It  is  a  permanent  ordi- 
nance in  thechurch.  The  Scriptures  desig- 
nate but  two  occurrences  as  Baptism  in  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Peter  declares,  Acts,  XI.  "As 
I  began  to  speak  to  the  household  Corne- 
lius, the  Holy  Spirit  fell  on  them  as  he  did 
on  us  at  the  beginning,  (on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost). Then  remembered  I  the  words  of 
the  Lord,  how  that  he  said  :  "  John  indeed 
baptized  in  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
in  the  Holy  Spirit."  God  bestowed  the  same 
gift — the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  gift — on  them  as 
on  us."  Peter  declares  that  these  two  oc- 
casions— when  the  Holy  Spirit  fell  on  the 
apostles  and  brethren,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, at  Jerusalem — and  on  the  house  of 
Cornelius  in  Caesarea — were  baptisms  in  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  Bible  knows  no  other. 
This  disposes  forever  of  all  talk  of  Baptism 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  now,  or  on  any  other  oc- 
casion, than  the  two  mentioned  by  the 
Scriptures.  Persons  might  as  well  claim 
the  power  to  create  a  world,  as  to  claim 
Baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  All  such  un- 
scriptural  visionary  ideas  that  leave  an 
open  door  for  fanaticism  and  folly  and  have 
cursed  the  world  with  the  most  infamous 
delusions  and  crimes,  should  be  abandoned. 


14 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


,  SECOND    SPEECH    OF    MR.  KELLEY. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  "LADIES  AXL> 
GENTLEMKN: — I  call  the  attention  of  the  au- 
dience to  the  fact  that  instead  of  the  nega- 
tive following  and  trying  to  answer  the 
affirmative,  he  has  seen  fit  to  try  to  prove 
some  ofcher  thing  true,  in  the  hope  that 
thereby  he  might  prove  that  what  I  have 
stated 'is  not  true.  It  is  customary  in  dis- 
cussions for  the  negative  to  follow  and  an- 
swer the  arguments  of  the  affirmative, 
unless  he  is  willing  to  admit  that  he  can- 
not move  them.  If  that  is  the  position  of 
the  negative  on  this  question,  and  he  is 
willing  to  admit  that  he  cannot  move  my 
position,  but  claims  that  there  is  something 
else  true  that  he  can  prove  outside  of  the 
line  of  the  affirmative,  and  which  may  be 
termed  an  alibi,  that  will  show  that  the 
position  of  the  affirmative  cannot  be  true 
because  there  is  a  contrary  truth  to  such, 
then  he  has  the  right  I  suppose  and  the 
option  to  do  so.  But  he  cannot  play  upon 
both  positions  and  keep  within  the  law  or 
rule  of  evidence  or  argument.  If  he  has  an 
alibi  let  him  make  the  proper  admission  or 
plea,  admitting  my  positions  and  setting  up 
his  claim,  and  then  I  can  follow  him  in  his 
lead,  as  he  will  thus  place  himself  fairly 
in  the  affirmative  and  I  can  answer  accord- 
ing to  the  rule,  and  the  debate  will  go  on 
orderly. 

Will  you  do  this?  But  I  will  first  notice 
one  or  two  of  his  positions,  in  order  to  show 
their  fallacyto  the  audience,  and  then  pro- 
ceed with  my  affirmative  arguments,  as  I 
shall  not  be  drawn  away  from  the  main 
question  under  consideration  to  discuss 
side  issues.  I  am  here  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  you  the  divine  origin  of  this  book, 
and  shall  show  it  before  the  eighth  evening 
returns,  I  promise  you  that.  It  is  said  that 
the  views  and  belief  of  the  people  who  be- 
lieve in  this  book  are  erroneous. 

Now,  suppose  that  I  was  discussing  with 
an  infidel  friend  at  this  time  with  regard 
to  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
when  I  should  take  my  position  in  order  to 
show  that  the  scriptures  as  delivered  to 
the  human  family  were  of  divine  origin, 
my  infidel  oponent  would  arise  and  say, 
yes,  your  positions  are  all  right;  I  cannot 
move  those.  But  then  your  people  have 
not  been  doing  right.  The  people  who  be- 
lieve in  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  in  ac- 
cordance with  them  in  faith  and  doctrine. 
Would  that  interfere  in  the  least  or  be  ap- 
plicable to  the  question  of  whether  the 
Scriptures  are  true  or  not  ?  And  so  it  is  with 
the  question  under  discussion.  The  ques- 
tion is,  as  to  the  divine  authenticity  of  this 
book,  in  regard  to  the  teachings  of  this 
book ;  but  he  has  sought  to  answer  here 
and  to  throw  'into  the  minds  of  the  audience 
the  assertion  that  the  people  who  believe 
in  this  book  are  not  doing  right,  has  called 


in  question  the  character  of  some  of  the 
persons  who  have  believed  in  it.  by  his  lan- 
guage and  a  few  set  phrases.  In  the  first 
place,  this  is  no  argument  nor  can  it  have 
a  particle  of  weight,  so  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned, towards  impeaching  the  divinity  of 
the  record  that  is  before  us.  I  might  ask 
him  if  he  believes  in  the  Proverbs  and 
Ecclesiastes,  written  and  compiled  by  Solo- 
mon ?  Yet  after  Solomon  had  written  these 
books  he  bowed  down  to  wood  and  stone; 
gods  made  with  men's  hands.  And  yet  I 
could  hurl  in  his  face  that  these  books 
that  were  the  compilation  of  the  wise 
king  ought  not  to  be  tolerated,  because, 
forsooth,  Solomon  afterwards  turned  from 
the  things  therein  and  did  evil  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord.  He  believes  in  the 
Psalms.  Yet  David  had  his  hundreds 
of  wives  and  concubines ;  and  not  only 
had  many  wives  and  concubines,  but 
took  a  poor  soldier's  wife  when  he  was  in 
the  front  of  war,  battling  for  his  country, 
and  then  afterwards  had  the  soldier  put 
in  the  front  of  the  battle  and  murdered  in 
order  that  he  might  carry  out  his  designs. 
But  because  of  this  shall  I  say  that  the 
divinity  of  the  Scriptures  is  at  all  called  in 
question?  Such  fallacy  of  reasoning  as 
this  ought  to  be  patent  to  any  man  that 
has  come  here  for  the  purpose  of  investigat- 
ing truth.  I  place  the  matter  in  the  shape 
of  a  separate  and  distinct  proposition.  How 
shall  we  canvass  this  subject?  How  shall 
we  go  to  work  in  order  to  canvass  this  book, 
and  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion  as  to  its 
merits?  There  are  many  ways  in  which 
you  may  fail  to  do  it.  There  were  many 
ways  in  which  the  people  in  the  first  age 
of  Christianity  undertook  to  canvass  the 
claims  with  regard  to  whether  Jesus  was 
what  he  claimed  to  be  or  not.  And  there 
were  true  ways  to  canvass  it  then,  and 
there  were  false  ways  to  canvass  it.  And 
remember  that  the  majority  of  the  people 
undertook  to  canvass  it  upon  the  false 
issues  and  in  the  false  ways.  Why,  I  have 
only  to  open  my  Bible  here  and  show  you 
the  conflict  in  this  regard  by  turning  to  the 
7th  chapter  of  John.  And  it  was  a  conflict 
not  unlike  the  conflict  that  is  presented 
here.  In  the  7th  chapter  of  John  and  the 
12th  verse  I  read  this  :  "And  there  was 
'much  murmuring  among  the  people  con- 
'cerning  him :  for  some  said,  He  is  a  good 
'man :  others  said,  Nay ;  but  he  deceiveth 
'the  people.  Howbeit  no  man  spake  open- 
'ly  of  him  for  fear  of  the  Jews."  Now  here 
was  a  question  in  regard  to  deciding  upon 
the  divine  claim  of  that  man,  and  therfr 
was  a  right  way  to  proceed,  and  there  was 
a  wrong  one.  Some,  instead  of  investigat- 
ing the  principles  that  he  brought,  and  the 
truths  that  he  presented,  said  standing 
behind  the  cloak  of  the  persons  that  had 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


15 


told  the  stories  around  about  Jerusalem 
with  reerard  to  him,  he  is  "a  deceiver  ;"  and 
not  only  a  deceiver,  but  "a  gluttonous 
man;"  *"a  wine  bibber  ;"  and  he  is  palm- 
ing upon  the  people  something  for  truth 
that  is  not  truth.  Was  there  any  argument 
in  that?  Is  there  any  argument  in  the  bare 
assertion  that  Joseph  Smith  was  a  false 
teacher,  or  that  he  was  a  deceiver?  And  I 
call  my  friend's  attention  to  the  fact  that 
he  has  made  him  out  a  false  prophet  and  a 
false  teacner  by  his  language  before  the 
audience,  before  he  has  offered  even  a  scrap 
of  evidence  to  you  to  prove  him  such.  Is  it 

E  roper,  in  the  consideration  of  the  question 
ere,  to  call  a  man  false  before  he  is  proven 
false?  I  wish  to  have  him  present  the 
argument  here,  if  he  wishes  to  take  up  that 
line,  and  show  that  he  is  a  deceiver,  a  false 
prophet,  and  a  very  wicked  man.  Then 
after  he  shall  have  done  that,  if  I  am  not 
able  to  meet  him  and  show  to  the  contrary, 
it  may  possibly  be  proper  for  him  to  use 
the  language  with  regard  to  him  that  he  has 
used.  I  have  not  said  anything  in  regard 
to  the  point  of  order  raised  by  the  chairman 
which  was  certainly  proper,  because  if 
my  opponent  in  this'  discussion  wishes  to 
make  a  poor  use  of  his  time  and  thus  throw 
it  away  in  regard  to  the  question  at  issue, 
I  propose  to  let  him  do  that,  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned.  But  I  shall  not  be  drawn  from 
the  main  subject  under  consideration  my- 
self. 

Then  how  shall  we  canvass  this  question  ? 
By  an  examination  into  the  history  and 
character,  supposed  faith  and  failings  of  the 
ones  presenting  it?  Do  you  think  that  a 
fair  examination  could  be  made  in  such  a 
way  ?  This,  as  I  said  before,  was  the  man- 
ner of  those  who  sought  or  tried  in  a  certain 
way  to  destroy  the  divine  mission  and 
character  of  Jesus.  Why,  you  cannot  palm 
that  man  off  on  us  for  the  Messiah  !  "For 
is  he  not  the  carpenter's  son  ?  Is  not  his 
mother  Mary,  and  are  not  Joses  and  James 
and  Simon  and  Judas  his  brothers  ?  "  Such 
a  rule  of  investigation  adopted  as  that,  was 
calculated  to  deceive  the  people,  and  to 
keep  all  those  deceived  who  engaged  in 
it,  rather  than  to  bring  light  to  them. 
Afterwards  when  the  apostles  went  out  to 
preach  to  the  world,  there  was  a  rule  laid 
down  whereby  men  might  come  to  a  correct 
conclusion  with  regard  to  the  things  that 
were  presented  by  the  apostles.  And  cer- 
tain individuals  saw  fit,  instead  of  following 
the  true  rule,  to  make  war  upon  the  char- 
acter of  the  apostles.  But  was  that  a  true 
way  to  examine  into  their  faith  ?  I  ask  my 
opponent  in  this  discussion  to  answer  a 
question  with  regard  to  that— Does  he  ap- 
prove the  course  of  the  Jews  in  testing  the 
truth  and  divinity  of  the  message  presented 
by  John  and  Jesus  in  searching  for  stories 
as  to  their  characters  ?  Tracing  out  their 
father  and  mother,  and  their  brethren,  etc. ; 
instead  of  investigating  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  message  that  was  brought,  and 
chat  was  shown  forth  in  the  claim  itself? 
After  he  has  answered  these,  then  I  ask 
him  to  state  to  this  audience  whether  he 


approves  the  act  of  the  wicked  Jews  In  in- 
vestigating the  claims  and  the  teachings  of 
the  apostles  themselves  as  they  went  forth 
to  the  world  to  carry  that  message,  by  in- 
quiring into  the  character  of  Paul  and  of 
Peter,  and  by  listening  to  the  stories  tint 
were  being  told  all  around  about  them  in 
Jerusalem  and  elseAvhere  instead  of  coming 
up  like  fair  men  and  weighing  and  canvas- 
sing the  words  that  they  presented  and 
comparing  them  with  the  Scriptures  that 
they  claimed  to  believe  in  ?  It  seems  to  me_^ 
that  if  we  are  to  canvass  the  question  under" 
consideration,  there  is  some  proper  way  by 
which  we  must  do  it.  How  shall  it  be 
done  ?  Is  there  any  rule  laid  down  ?  I  be- 
lieve that  the  Bible  is  the  standard  in 
controversy,  as  stated  by  my  opponent. 
He  stated  many  things  to  you  that  were 
true,  and  many  things  with  regard  to  my 
belief  that  were  untrue,  and  so  many  of 
them  are  not  true,  that  the  only  answer 
that  I  will  make  to  them  at  this  time,  is  the 
answer  that  General  Ro-secrans  telegraphed 
back  to  Washington  on  the  occasion  of  the 
re-union  of  the  soldiers  at  Cincinnati  last 
Fall  in  reference  to  a  statement  made  in  the 
newspapers  at  Washington  of  a  purported 
interview.  He  said,  "there  is  so  "much 
falsehood  mixed  in  with  the  little  truth  in 
the  publication,  that  I  send  back  a  telegram 
that  the  whole  is  false."  Now,  I  do  not  use 
the  term  falsehood  in  a  deliberate  sense  in 
regard  to  my  opponent,  but  certainly  he 
has  misconceived  the  positions  that  I  take 
and  that  my  people  take  with  reference  to 
our  belief  in  the  scriptures  and  in  the  reve- 
lations. And  on  many  other  things  that  he 
stated  before  you  he  is  as  ignorant,  if  he 
has  stated  what  he  really  believes,  as  the 
majority,  no  doubt,  of  this  audience.  But 
it  is  my  place  to  enlighten  him,  and  I  will 
try  to  do  so  before  this  discussion  closes. 
When  Jesus  had  been  examined  under  a 
wrong  rule  by  the  wicked  Jews  in  his  time, 
he  gave  the  apostles  a  correct  rule  by 
which  they  mignt  try  men.  and  that  cor- 
rect rule  is  stated  in  direct  language  when 
he  refers  them  to  the  teaching  of  Moses  and 
the  prophets.  He  says  to  them,  "If  ye  be- 
lieved in  Moses  and  the  prophets,  ye  would 
believe  in  me,  for  Moses  wrote  of  me." 
And  again,  as  you  will  find  recorded  in  the 
8th  chapter  and  46th  verse  of  John  :  "Which 
of  you  couvinceth  me  of  sin  ?  And  if  I  say 
the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me?" 
Now,  the  Jews  were  standing  there,  some 
saying  that  he  was  the  son  of  Joseph,  some 
saying  that  he  was  the  son  of  Mary  and  that 
these  men  around  here  were  his  brethren, 
and  that  he  was  a  deceiver  and  a  wine 
bibber  and  a  gluttonous  man.  But  Jesus 
says  to  them,  "If  I  say  the  truth,  why  do 
you  not  believe  me?"  That  was  the 
proper  ground  upon  which  to  decide  wheth- 
er he  was  an  impostor  or  not,  or  whether 
his  message  came  from  heaven  or  not. 
Afterwards  he  lays  down  a  distinct  and 
positive  rule  for  his  disciples  to  go  by.  My 
friend  claims  to  be  a  Disciple.  Will  he  go 
by  it,  and  will  he  answer  to  this  audience 
whether  it  is  a  true  rule  or  not?  He  says, 


16 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


"Which  of  you  convinceth  me  of  sin  ?  And 
if  I  say  the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe 
me?"  "He  that  is  of  God  'heareth  God's 
words  :  Ye  therefore  hear  them  not  because 
ye  are  not  of  God."— John  8:46,47. 

Again,  a  further  exposition  of  this  rule 
by  one  of  his  apostles  afterwards.  You  will 
find  it  recorded  by  John  in  his  second  epis- 
tle, 9th  verse,  wherein  he  states  that  "who- 
soever transgresseth,  and  abideth  not  in 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not  God." 
That  is  the  way  to  try  men.  I  have  pre- 
sented you  my  case  this  evening1,  and  told 
you  that  I  believed  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  and  that  so  far  as  the  revelation  on 
the  other  continent  was  concerned,  I  was 
in  agreement  with  it.  I  take  up  the  reve- 
lation made  on  the  other  continent,  and  it 
says,  "He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the 
Son."  And  what  am  I  answered  with? 
"  Oh,  they  are  deceivers  !  They  are  fanat- 
ics !  He  is  a  false  prophet." 

There  was  one  position  that  was  taken  by 
the  negative  in  his  argument  that  I  will 
examine  in  due  time,  but  I  will  not  leave 
the  subject  at  this  time  to  do  so.  That  with 
reference  to  the  cessation  of  miraculous  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  inspiration,  or  the 
confining  of  them  to  the  first  century.  If  I 
cannot  snow  that  they  were  not  confined  to 
the  first  century,  why,  certainly  I  ought  to 
be  able  to,  if  this  is  true  in  this  book,  m  one 
sense.  But  then  this  book  might  be  true  in 
a  certain  sense,  too,  and  still  they  be  con- 
fined, so  far  as  the  people  on  the  eastern 
continent  are  concerned,  to  the  first  cen- 
tury. 

However,  I  will  examine  that  when  the 
time  comes,  and  will  make  it  explicit  and 
clear  to  the  audience.  We  have  the  rule  as 
stated  by  the  Apostle  John,  in  accordance 
with  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  Master  him- 
self: —  "Whosoever  transgresseth,  and  abi- 
deth not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not 
God.  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  he  hath  both  the*  Father  and  the 
Son."  Now,  will  you  investigate  my  char- 
acter in  order  to  know  whether  lam  teach- 
ing the  right  kind  of  doctrine  or  not  this 
evening  ?  Or  would  such  a  course  be  perti- 
nent to  the  question  ?  So  with  any  other 
character.  If  that  was  the  test,  I  could 
overthrow,  by  taking  the  testimony  of  ene- 
mies and  the  testimony  of  friends,  every 
writer  that  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  and 
sink  them  so  low  that  no  man  could  ever 
resurrect  them.  But,  I  repeat,  it  is  no  test. 

In  the  next  verse  to  the  rule  already  quo- 
ted the  apostle  says  : — "  If  there  come  any 
unto  vpu  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  re- 
ceive him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid 
him  God  speed."  But,  instead  of  examin- 
ing the  question  in  regard  to  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  book  under  investigation,  in  that 
line,  he  sees  fit  to  go  back  and  ask  in  regard 
to  the  character  of  the  people,  what  their 
enemies  said  about  them  preferring  the  stor- 
ies of  their  enemies,  to  the  truth.  But  I 
leave  the  matter  thus  far  with  you,  and  pro- 
ceed with  my  main  affirmative  argument. 

Having  generally  introduced  the  subject 


under  discussion,  I  shall  proceed  at  once  to 
marshall  the  testimony  found  in  the  Bible 
that  is  fairly  applicable  to  my  positions. 

It  may  be  properly  arranged  under  the 
following  general  divisions  :  — 

1.  That  of  a  general  nature,  showing  that 
it  is  in  harmony  with  the  general  law  rela- 
ting to  the  race  of  man,  that  God  makes 
known  his  will  to  him  wherever  and  when- 
ever man  will  put  himself  in  condition  to 
receive  instruction;  regardless  of  caste  or  na- 
tionality, and  making  it  possible  and  proba- 
ble, that  nations  other  than   the  Jews  of 
Palestine,  have  received  instruction  from 
Him. 

2.  Such  testimony  as  is  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  which  specifically  refers  to  the 
fact  of  a  people  settling  the  American  con- 
tinent from  the  orient ;  definitely  setting 
forth  who  they  were ;  the  reason  arid  object 
of  their  coming  ;  the  results  of  the  migra- 
tion, and  the  character  and  nature  of  the 
revelations  God  from  time  to  time  made  to 
them. 

3.  The  prophetic  writings  contained  in  the 
Bible  which  refer  to  the  decadence  of  the 
people  who  came  here,  the  bringing  to  light 
of  their  history  and  Record,  and   the  im- 
portant part  that  Record  is  to  fill  in  the 
purposes  of  the  Almighty  as  an  ensign  to 
the  people,  and  a  means  of  leading  rnen  and 
women  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God. 

Under  the  first  of  these  divisions  the 
statement  of  the  Apostle  Paul  is  directly  in 
support.  Acts  17:  26  and  27  :  "And  [God] 
hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men 
for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
hath  determined  the  times  before  appointed, 
and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  :  That 
they  should  seek  the  Lord,  if  happily  they 
might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though 
he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us." 

Whatever  may  be  our  views  and  precon- 
ceived notions  with  regard  to  the  dealings 
of  the  divine  hand  with  the  human  family, 
it  was  made  clear  to  the  gifted  mind  of  the 
apostle,  that  God  did  have  something  to  do 
in  fixing  the  bounds  of  the  human  habita- 
tion, and  that  He  did  it  for  the  purpose  that 
they  might  seek  Him  ;  —  not  only  this,  but 
that  they  might  also  "find  him,"  which 
finding  is  to  be  brought  into  such  relation- 
ship with  him  as  to  actually  know  him,  to 
have  a  knowledge  of  their  acceptance  from 
him  of  their  work  and  hence  a  communica- 
tion of  his  will. .  The  testimony  of  the  apos- 
tle Peter  is  in  perfect  agreement  with  the 
thought,  acts  10:  34  and  35,  when  he  de- 
clares :  — 

"  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  re- 
spector  of  persons  :  But  in  every  nation  he 
that  fearetn  him,  and  worketh  righteous- 
ness is  accepted  with  him."  It  had  been 
with  the  Jews  up  to  Peter's  time  as  with 
the  great  mass  of  the  people  denominated 
Christians  to-day,  an  idea  that  God  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  any  people  except 
the  few  who  congregated  aoout  Jerusalem 
so  far  as  communicating  his  will  or  accept- 
ance to  them  was  concerned,  and  that  all 
had  been  said  by  him  to  the  world  through 
them  that  was  necessary,  or  that  he  had  to 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


17 


communicate :  But  when  the  light  of  truth 
was  sent  from  on  high  and  dawned  upon 
Peter's  mind,  he  woke  up  to  the  grand  fact 
that  with  our  common  Father  and  Creator 
there  was  no  partiality,  that  his  will  and 
desire  extended  everywhere  to  aid  and  bless 
the  creature,  the  same  that  was  subjected 
in  hope.  His  acceptance  ou  this  occasion 
was  the  same  as  made  all  along  through  the 
history.  That  same  comforter  which  was 
shed  forth  at  the  acceptance  of  Jesus,  when 
He  said,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,"  and 
of  which  Jesus  had  said,  "  If  I  go  away  I 
will  send  him,"  was  shed  forth  ;  and  fall- 
ing upon  those  of  the  uncircumcisiou, 
"  They  heard  them  speak  with  tongues  and 
magnify  God."  And  the  apostle  and  those 
who  were  with  him  from  the  manifestation 
of  God  to  the  people  recognized  that  there 
was  an  acceptance. 

Jesus  is  the  next  witness  I  offer  upon  the 
point  of  the  existence  of  another  people, 
than  the  Jews,  who  had  been  in  communi- 
cation with  the  father  at  the  date  he  per- 
sonally presented  the  gospel  to  the  people: 
John  10,  14  and  16  : — "  I  aru  the  good  shep- 
"'  herd,  and  know  my  sheep,  (people),  and 
'  am  knowu  of  mine.    As  the  Father  kuow- 
1  eth  me  even  so  know  I  the  Father :  and  I 
'  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.    And  other 
'sheep,  (people),  I  have,  which  are  not  of 
'this  fold:  (the  fold  of  Jerusalem),   them 
'al3O  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my 
'  voice ;  and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one 
'  shepherd." 

To  have  been  sheep,  the  people  referred 
to  by  Jesus  in  this  scripture,  mast  have  at 
some  time  had  the  will  of  God  made  known 
to  them  and  also  believed  the  same,  or  else 
have  been  of  Israel,  made  so  by  reason  of 
the  promises.  Otherwise,  they  could  not 
have  been  sheep ;  for  says  Jesus :  "  My 
sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  1  know  them  and 
they  follow  me."  They  like  Abraham  of 
old  had  heard  and  recognized  the  inspired 
voice  as  had  also  the  Jews  when  he  led 
them  along  through  the  difficulties  of  life 
and  who  had  hearkened  in  a  manner  to  his 
precepts;  and  although  at  that  time  far 
separated  from  the  fold  from  whence  they 
had  been  led,  (Jerusalem),  yet,  they,  as  the 
Jews  to  whom  the  address  was  then  made, 
were  to  hear  the  voice  of  that  same  shep- 
herd. These  citations  establish  the  fact 
certainly  of  the  first  proposition,  that  there 
were  at  the  time  Jesus  was  ministering 
upon  the  earth,  another  people  than  those 
at  the  fold  of  Jerusalem  who  were,  or  had 
been  acceptable  in  their  worship  with  God. 
But  this  is  but  one  fact  established ;  the 
second,  pointing  out  the  people  referred  to, 
must  be  shown,  ero  we  can  apply  with  un- 
derstanding to  the  particular  people,  the 
Master's  declaration.  Turning  to  Math.  10, 
6,  6,  we  find  a  descriptive  statement  of  the 
kind  or  class  of  people  who  were  termed  by 
Jesus,  sheep:  — "These  twelve  Jesus  sent 
1  forth  and  commanded  them,  saying,  Go 
'  not  in  to  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into 
'  any  city  o?  tbo  Samaritans  enter  ye  not. 
'  But  go  TAtb  fi  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
'house  of  If /ael."  Here  then  is  another 


mark  of  distinction  by  which  the  sheep  of 
whom  he  spoke  may  be  known. 

In  addition  to  being  a  people  who  have 
hearkened  to  his  teachings,  they  were  of 
the  house  of  Israel ; — of  the  tribes  of  which 
Judah  was  but  one,  that  had  under  the 
promises  sprung  from  Jacob,  (Israel),  and 
hence  of  the  house  of  Israel.  The  prophet 
Ezekiel  in  speaking  of  those  in  the  34th 
chapter  of  that  book  gives  us  instruction  as 
to  where  we  might  expect  to  look  for  this 
house  of  Israel:  "My  sheep  wandered 
"through  all  the  mountains,  and  upon  ev- 
"ery  high  hill ;  yea,  my  flock  was  scattered 
"upon  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  nono 
"did  search  or  seek  after  them."  And 
again,  verse  11.  "For  thus  saith  the  Lord 
"God:  Behold  I,  even  I,  will  both  search 
"my  sheep  and  seek  them  out." 

It  is  clear  then  that  in  our  search  to  find 
the  people  denominated  sheep  of  whom  Je- 
sus spoke,  and  that  he  was  to  search  after, 
we  are  not  necessarily  bound  to  confine  our- 
selves to  any  particular  part  of  God's  heri- 
tage; for,  "they  were  scattered  upon  all 
the  face  of  the  earth;"  and  although  men 
who  have  termed  themselves  the  wise  and 
learned  of  the  world,  may  have  thought 
that  the  little  country  of  Palestine  is  the 
only  one  wherein  Jesus'  voice  had  been 
heard,  inspiration  unmistakably  points  to 
the  contrary,  and  no  person  should  be  sur- 
prised to  find  that  in  the  faithful  examina- 
tion of  these  things  the  inspired  writings, 
shall  have  been  found  correct.  Taking  up 
the  Record  forming  the  basis  of  this  discus- 
sion, I  read  on  page  451,  of  a  claim  made 
that  the  language  of  Jesus  made  at  Jerusa- 
lem was  with  the  understanding  that  ho 
knew  of  these  on  this  continent,  as  also 
others  in  a  different  part  of  the  earth : 

"And  behold,  (says  Jesus  to  these),  "this  is  the  land 
'of  your  inheritance ;  and  the  Father  hath  given  it 
'unto  you.  And  not  at  any  lime  liath  the  Father 
'given  me  commandment  that  I  should  tell  ittoynur 
'brethren  at  Jerusalem;  neither  at  any  time  hath  the 
'Father  given  me  commandment  that  I  should  tell  it 
'unto  them  concerning  the  other  tribes  of  the  house  of 
'Israel,  whom  the  Father  hath  led  away  out  of  the 
'land.  This  much  did  the  Father  command  me,  that 
'I  should  tell  unto  them,  that,  other  sheep  I  have, 
'which  are  not  of  this  fold  ;  them  also  I  must  bring, 
'and  they  shall  hear  my  voice ;  and  there  shall  be  one 
'fold  and  one  shep  erd.  And  now  because  of  stiff- 
'neckedness  and  unbelief,  they  understood  not  my 
'word;  therefore  I  was  commanded  to  say  no  more  of 
'the  Father  concerning  this  unto  them.  But,  verily,  I 
'say  unto  you,  that  the  Father  hath  commanded  me, 
'and  I  tell  it  unto  you,  that  ye  were  separated  f  <>m 
'among  them  because  of  their  iniquity ;  therefore  it  is 
'because  of  their  iniquity  that  they  know  not  of  you. 
'And  verily.  I  say  unto  you  again,  th«t  the  other  tribes 
'bath  the  Father  separated  from  them;  and  it  is  be- 
'cause  of  their  iniquity,  that  they  know  not  of  them. 
'And  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  are  they  of  whom 
'I  said,  other  sheep  I  have  which  are  not  of  this  fold  ; 
'them  also  I  mnst  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my 
'voice:  and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
•herd." 

But,  says  the  objector,  what  evidence  is 
that,  that  these  were  the  people  referred  to? 
Only  this ;  in  the  singularity  of  the  state- 
ment which  the  record  makes,  and  the  new 
fact  brought  to  light,  if  it  shall  upon  inves- 
tigation be  found  to  be  a  fact,  at  a  time  in 
the  world's  history  when  it  was  supposed 
by  scriptorians  everywhere  that  Jesus  re- 
ferred to  another  thing,  and  which  view  is 


13 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


found  to  have  been  erroneous  when  exam- 
ined closely  from  a  Bible  standpoint  in  the 
light  that  is  newly  thrown  upon  the  world 
by  this  record.  And  further  it  bears  evi- 
dence in  this,  being  a  circumstance  in  the 
chain  of  evidence  which  unites  to  form  a 
complete  connection  with  this  people  and 
that  at  Jerusalem.  And  it  is  of  value  pro- 
viding, the  other  links  in  the  chain  accord 
therewith,  and  harmonize,  and  thus  indeed 
form  a  chain,  the  which,  no  other  reasona- 
ble view  is  adverse. 

Do  not  understand  me,  or  misrepresent 
me  as  jumping  at  the  conclusion  that  be- 
cause of  the  expression  of  Jesus  on  the 
other  continent,  found  in  John's  gospel, 
therefore  the  book  of  Mormon  is  true  ;  nor 
because  the  language  is  contained  in  the 
book  from  which  I  have  read,  therefore,  it 
is  true.  I  think  I  understand  and  compre- 
hend the  rules  of  logic  as  well  as  those  of 
evidence  too  we.l  to  make  any  such  blun- 
dering, or  startling  leap,  at  conclusions  as 
that ;  and  wi^h  you  to  take  only  things  for 
evidence  after  they  shall  have  fairly  been 
shown  to  be  such. 

Whether  I  believed  in  the  words  read 
from  the  Record  I  have  before  me  or  not, 
there  would  hang  to  mind  the  singularity 
of  the  statement  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem,  ta- 
ken in  connection  with  the  other  fact  that 
it  seemed  to  have  been  so  wholly  ignored 
and  misunderstood  by  those  to  whom  it  was 
'addressed.  No  one  even  to  ask,  Lord  to 
whom  do  you  refer?  Indeed  it  is  singular 
knowing  as  we  do,  that  the  Gentiles  are  not 
and  never  were  reckoned  as  sheep.  The 
same  stolid  indifference  still  manifest  by 
that  people  and  that  seems  to  have  hung  by 
them  so  long  before  and  after,  that  to 
them  nothing  was  of  worth  or  interest  out- 
side of  Judah  and  the  little  country  on  the 
east  of  the  great  sea. 

Returning  to  the  line  of  evidence,  I  take 
up  the  testimony  of  the  scriptures  which 
relate  to  the  establishment  of  a  people  in 
the  land  as  claimed  in  this  record :  — 

Genesis,  49,  22,  Jacob,  ( Israel),  the  head  of 
the  tribes  in  his  last  blessing  upon  the 
twelve  sons  whose  children  should  figure 
so  wonderfully  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
says,  in  his  blessing  of  Joseph  : — 

"  Joseph  is  a  fruitful  bough,  even  a  fruitful  bough 
"by  a  weil;  whose  branches  run  over  the  wall:" 

"The  archers  have  sorely  grieved  him  and  shot  at 
"him,  and  hated  him:  But  his  bow  abode  in  strength 
"ami  the  arms  of  his  hands  were  made  strong  by  the 
"handsof  the  mighty  God  of  Jacob;  (from  thence  is  the 
"Bh<  pherd  the  s.one  of  Israel): 

"Even  by  the  God  of  thy  father,  who  shall  help  thee 
"and  by  the  Almighty,  who  shall  bless  theu  with  bless- 
ings of  heaven  above,  blessings  of  the  deep  that 
"lieth  under,  blessings  of  the  breasts,  and  of  the 


'womb:  the  blessings  of  thy  father  have  prevailed! 
'above  the  blessings  of  my  progenitors  unto  the  ut- 
'most  bound  of  the  everlasting  hills:  they  shall  be  on 
'the  head  of  Jo  eph,  and  on  the  crown  of  the  head  of 
'him  that  was  separate  from  his  brethren." 

Whatever  may,  or  may  not  have  been 
the  former  entertained  or  expressed  views 
of  the  meaning  and  application  of  this 
prophetic  blessing,  one  thing  must  be  ad- 
mitted by  all  the  intelligent,  and  that  is, 
that  the  prediction  clearly  shows  a  change 
of  place  of  residence  and  habitation  at  some 
period  of  time,  of  the  posterity  of  Joseph. 
Also  their  settlement  and  inheritence  of  a 
country  far  greater  in  extent,  and  more 
wonderful  for  richness  and  desirableness 
than  the  country  of  Palestine,  or  that  ad- 
jacent. 

The  prophecy  reveals  what  is  to  be  the 
history  of  the  descendents  :  —  "Whose 
'branches  run  over  the  wall."  "The 
'  blessings  of  thy  father  have  prevailed 
1  above  the  blessings  of  my  progenitors 
'unto  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  everlasting 
1  hills."  The  blessing  of  Jacob's  progeni- 
tors, Isaac  and  Abraham,  consisted  in  the 
promise  of  the  country  east  and  south  of  the 
great  sea  (Mediterranean),  from  the  River 
of  Egypt  to  the  Euphrates,  including  the 
whole  of  Canaan.  This  is  clearly  establish- 
ed by  the  following  references  :  Gen.  12:7  - 
1 : 8  ;  15 :  7  &  18  ;  26  : 3  &  4  ;  28  :  4,  and  48  :  4. 

But  in  the  prophetic  blessing  of  Joseph 
the  statement  is  emphatic  that  the  branch- 
es (daughters,  children,  posterity),  of  Jo- 
seph were  to  extend  above  this,  beyond 
Canaan  and  the  country  of  the  Mediterra- 
nean, even  "unto  the  utmost  bound  of  the 
everlasting  hills."  Far  from  the  country 
of  Palestine,  to  a  land  teaming  with  the 
first  things  of  earth,  honored  with  the 
choicest  of  blessings  and  one  to  be  desired 
above  that  of  Canaan. 

I  invite  you  to  candidly  and  fairly  enter 
upon  the  search  for  this  "promised"  land, 
and  to  be  only  as  confident  in  the  same  as 
the  history  and  prophetic  writings  shall 
fully  and  fairly  warrant.  Turning  to  Deut. 
33 : 13  to  18,  we  find  a  further  account  and 
description  of  this  same  country,  and  also 
a  prediction  with  reference  to  this  same 
branch  of  the  human  family.  It  is  the  lan- 
guage of  Moses,  the  great  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical lawgiver  of  ancient  times,  and  "the 
prophet."  to  whom  even  reference  is  made 
in  pointing  out  a  likeness  of  the  great  char- 
acter of  Jesus. 

Upon  these  words  we  may  rely  if  we  are 
to  place  implicit  confidence  in  any  state- 
ments of  the  divine  record. 

(Time  called.) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


19 


MR.    BRADEN'S    SECOND    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:— We  return  now  to  the  rest  of 
Joel's  promise,  and  what  was  also  included 
in  the  Saviour's  promises.  Joel's  promise 
was  to  all  flesh,  without  exception.  It  in- 
cluded every  human  being.  Our  Saviour  in 
his  last  great  commission  to  Iris  apostles  lim- 
ited Joel's  promise  to  "as  many  as  should 
believe "  on  him  through  the  preaching 
of  the  apostles.  His  language  includes  all 
believers,  without  exception.  But  as  our 
Saviour  limits  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  Joel,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Peter 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  limits  our  Saviour's 
promise  to  "as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call."  There  is  no  conflict,  but  merely 
a  gradual  development,  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  successive  revelations,  of  the  law  of  spir- 
itual gifts.  Joel's  promise  was  limited  by 
our  Saviour  to  believers  ;  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  Peter,  limits  the  promise  of  Joel 
and  Jesus  to  those  among  believers  "  whom 
the  Lord  our  God  should  call."  Only  those 
whom  the  Lord  our  God  should  call  were 
to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  gift,  or  were 
to  receive  miraculous  power  through  the 
Holy  Spirit.  When  God  ceased  calling 
persons  to  the  exercise  of  these  gifts,  they 
were  to  cease.  The  all-important  question 
then  is  :  "  How  did  God  call  men  to  the  en- 
joyment of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the 
exercise  of  these  miraculous  powers,  con- 
ferred by  the  Holy  Spirit,  called  spiritual 
gifts  ?  How  long  did  he  continue  to  call 
men  to  the  exercise  of  these  gifts  ?  When 
did  he  cease  to  call  men  to  the  exercise  of 
these  miraculous  powers  ?" 

I  claim  that  he  called  them  to  the  exer- 
cise of  spiritual  gifts,  in  every  instance,  ex- 
cept tne  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit— by 
the  imposition  of  an  apostle's  hands — in 
that  way  alone.  None  but  an  apostle  could 
call  men  to  the  exercise  of  these  gifts.  This 
power  to  bestow  these  gifts  was  "  the  sign 
of  apostleship."  When  the  apostles  ceased 
to  call  men,  God  ceased  to  call  men,  to  the 
exercise  of  these  gifts,  for  his  appointed 
and  only  means  of  calling  men  to  these 
spiritual  gifts  ceased.  Then  as  many,  out 
of  all  flesh,  out  of  believers,  as  God  called — 
by  his  only  appointed  means,  the  imposi- 
tion of  an  apostle's  hands — to  the  exercise 
of  these  spiritual  gifts,  and  no  others  re- 
ceived them.  Outside  of  the  Baptism  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  no  one  ever  enjoyed  these  Drifts, 
except  those  on  whom  an  apostle  laid  his 
hands,  to  impart  them.  Acts,  VIII.  Philip, 
who  exercised  wonderfui  spiritual  powers, 
could  not  impart  spiritual  gifts.  "  Now 
when  the  apostles,  who  were  at  Jerusalem, 
heard  that  the  Samaritans  had  received  the 
word  of  God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and 
John,  who  when  they  were  come  down 
prayed  for  them,  that  they  might  receive 
the  Holy  Spirit,  for  as  yet  he  had  not  fallen 


on  any  of  them,  only  they  had  been  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  My  op- 
ponent's claim  that  baptism  is  for  tne  re- 
ceiving of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  at  fault  here. 
These  persons  had  been  baptized,  and  had 
not,  and  could  not  receive  the  Holy  Spirit 
until  an  apostle  had  laid  hands  on  them, 
for  the  account  proceeds  :  "  Then  they  laid 
their  hands  on  them  and  they  received  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Simon  saw  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  given  through  the  laying  on  of 
the  apostle's  hands."  Here  it  is  declared, 
as  clearly  as  human  speech  can  make  it,, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  received  through 
the  laying  on  of  an  apostle's  hands.  That 
he  was  imparted  in  that  way  alone,  for  the 
apostles  had  to  come  down  from  Jerusalem, 
and  lay  their  hands  on  them,  before  they 
could  receive  him,  although  tb.ey  bad  been 
baptized,  and  Philip  the  mighty  wonder- 
worker, who  was  full  of  the  miraculous 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  with  them. 
If  Philip  could  not  bestow  the  Holy  Spirit, 
no  one  outside  of  an  apostle  could. 

Acts,  IX.  Saul's  case  is  supposed  to  be 
an  exception.  He  was  in  Damascus,  hun- 
dreds of  miles  from  any  apostle.  As 
prophets,  who  were  not  Levites,  sometimes 
offered  sacrifices  as  prophets,  when  TJO  Le- 
vite  was  present  to  officiate,  so  here,  God 
called  and  miraculously  commissioned  and 
appointed  Ananias  to  act  as  special  apostle, 
in  this  case,  to  confer  on  Saul  tho  HoJy 
Spirit.  He  declares:  "The  Lord  Jes-iS 
sent  me  to  you,  that  you  may  receive  the 
Holy  Spirit."  This  case  no  more  sets  to 
one  side  our  law  than  the  act  of  Elijah  in 
offering  sacrifices  as  prophet,  when  there 
r/as  no  priest  to  officiate^  sets  to  one  side 
God's  positive  law  that  no  one  but  a  Levite 
could  offer  sacrifices.  Acts,  XIX.  Paul 
baptized  the  twelve  disciples  of  John,  at 
Ephesus.  "  Then  he  laid  hands  on  them 
and  they  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
spoke  with  tongues  and  prophesied.  Tim. 
1-6."  "Stir  up  the  gift  of  God  that  is  in 
you,  through  the  laying  on  of  my  hands." 
These  are  all  of  the  instances  of  the  imparta- 
tion  of  spiritual  gifts,  in  the  Scriptures,  out- 
side of  the  Baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  Holy  Spirit  was  imparted,  in  every 
instance,  by  the  imposition  of  an  apostle's 
hands.  These  Scriptures  prove  beyond 
cavil  that  no  one  but  an  apostle  could  con- 
fer these  gifts,  and  that  they  were  con- 
ferred in  that  way  alone.  None  but  an 
apostie  could  call  to  the  exercise  of  these 
gifts.  These  gifts  never  descended  to  a 
third  person.  I  challenge  an  instance 
where  they  descended  to  a  third  person. 
That  any  one  ever  exercised  spiritual  gifts 
but  one  called  by  the  imposition  of  an  apos- 
tle's hand.  When  the  last  person  to  whom 
an  apostle  had  imparted  these  gifts,  by  the 
imposition  of  his  hands,  died  these  gift* 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ceased  from  earth.  God  ceased  calling  men 
to  the  exercise  of  these  gifts  when  his  only 
appointed  means  of  calling  them  ceased. 
Thus  wo  utterly  demolish  every  claim  of 
inspiration  for  Joe  Smith  or  any  of  his  fol- 
lowers ;  every  shadow  of  claim  of  inspira- 
tion for  the  Book  of  Mormon  ;  all  claim 
that  it  is  of  divine  origin. 

The  Scriptures  clearly  teach  that  these 
miraculous  powers  were  exercised  to  give 
to  man  a  completed  revelation  of  a  scheme  of 
salvation  from  sin,  and  that  when  that  ob- 
ject was  accomplished,  they  ceased.  We 
nave  already  used  the  illustration  of  crea- 
tion. God  brought  animals  and  plants  into 
existence  by  miracle  of  direct  creation.  But 
when  that  was  done  he  ceased  miracles  of 
creation,  and  now  operates  in  a  higher  and 
more  perfect  manner,  by  natural  law.  So 
he  gave  rsve^  ion  by  means  of  inspiration 
until  he  had  completed  a  perfect  system  of 
revelation  universally  applicable,  and 
eternal  truths.  Then  he  ceased  revelation 
and  miracle,  and  operates  now  through  a 
higher  and  more  perfect  law,  the  moral 
power  of  these  divine  truths,  thus  revealed 
and  completed.  The  Bible  speaks  of  the 
unfolding  of  the  scheme  of  redemption  as 
being  similar  to  the  growth  of  each  person, 
from  infancy  to  manhood.  As  the  child 
lays  to  one  side  the  discipline  of  the  school 
and  the  parent,  and  enters  on  the  duties  of 
life,  in  which  he  uses  what  parents  and 
teachers  have  taught  him,  so  the  Bible 
teaches  that  mankind  have  laid  to  one  side 
the  instrumentalities  employed  in  child- 
hood and  youth,  and  now,  as  men,  use  the 
truths  God  has  imparted  and  perfected. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  settlers  of 
America  had  no  government.  Then  they 
obtained  from  home  government  colonial 
governments.  This  was  followed  by  the 
revolutionary  government.  Then  came  gov- 
ernment under  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion. Under  these  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion was  held,  and  a  constitution  offered  to 
the  people.  They  adopted  it  and  estab- 
lished a  complete  government  under  it. 
All  constitutional  convention  work  then 
ceased.  The  Antediluvian  Dispensation, 
from  Adam  to  the  flood,  might  be  com- 
pared to  the  settlers  before  they  had 
a  regular  government.  The  Patriarchal 
Dispensation,  from  the  flood  to  the  law  of 
Sinaij  might  be  regarded  as  the  period  of 
colonies  and  governments  under  the  parent 
government.  The  Mosaic  Dispensation 
might  be  compared  to  our  revolutionary 
government.  The  preparatory  work  of 
John  and  our  Saviour  to  government  under 
the  articles  of  confederation,  when  the  con- 
stitutional convention  was  established  and 
did  its  work.  The  apostles  and  the  work 
under  them  might  be  compared  to  the  work 
of  the  constitutional  convention,  and  the 
organization  of  our  government  in  accord- 
ance with  the  constitution.  The  apostles 
were  appointed  by  our  Saviour  to  give  to 
the  church  its  constitution  the  New  Testa- 
ment, just  as  the  people  chose  delegates  to 
the  constitutional  convention,  through  their 
representatives,  and  empowered  them  to 


frame  the  constitution.  Now  mankind 
adopt  the  New  Testament,  form  churches 
under  it,  and  live  in  accordance  with  its 
principles,  just  as  our  people  accept  our 
constitution,  form  states  under  it,  and  live 
in  accordance  with  the  general  laws  and 
principles  of  the  constitution.  Just  as  the 
constitutional  convention  ceased  it  work, 
when  it  had  framed  the  constitution,  so  the 
apostles  and  revelation  ceased  their  work, 
when  the  New  Testament  was  completed. 
Togo  back  under  direct  revelations  would 
be  as  absurd  as  to  go  back  under  aconstitu- 
tional  convention.  Direct  revelations  were 
as  much  inferior  to  the  operation  of  the 
completed  word  of  God,  as  the  constitu- 
tional convention  was  to  government  under 
the  constitution.  In  all  of  the  former  dis- 
pensations, when  miraculous  powers  were 
exercised,  the  condition  of  mankind  was 
as  inferior  to  our  condition  now,  under  a 
completed  revelation,  as  all  former  condi- 
tion* of  our  people  were  inferior  to  our 
present  condition.  Not  only  so  but  revela- 
tion in  all  dispensations  speaks  of  the 
dispensations,  when  miraculous  powers 
existed,  as  imperfect  provisional,  and  pre- 
paratory to  something  higher  and  better. 
They  speak  of  the  work  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles  as  that  which  is  perfect  and  com- 
plete. They  never  speak  of  anything  that 
is  to  succeed  it,  of  anything  that  is  to  be 
better  than  the  Gospel.  John  speaks  of  the 
work  of  Jesus  as  perfect.  The  apostle 
speaks  of  this  work  as  the  perfection  of  the 
work  of  revelation,  as  that  which  is  per- 
fect. That  which  is  to  have  no  successor. 
They  speak  of  what  the  Gospel  will  do,  but 
not  what  something  higher  and  better,  that 
is  to  replace  it,  will  do.  The  Scriptures 
teach  clearly  and  positively,  not  that  these 
miraculous  gifts  were  to  remain  as  a  con- 
stituent and  perpetual  element  in  the  Gos- 
pel, the  church  and  their  workings,  but 
that  they  wTere  the  means  of  revealing  the 
Gospel,  the  New  Testament,  and  when  that 
was  done  they  were  to  cease.  These  n.  lacu- 
lous  powers  were  no  more  a  part  of  the 
Gospel  than  the  exercise  of  miraculous 
powers  exercised  in  creation  was  a  part  of 
things  created.  Just  as  miraculous  power 
in  creation  was  only  the  means,  and  ceased 
when  it  had  accomplished  its  work,  so 
miraculous  power  in  revelation,  was  the 
means  of  revealing  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  a  part  of  that  word  and  ceased  when 
revelation  was  completed,  and  did  not  re- 
main a  part  of  what  it  had  introduced  and 
completed.  Constitution  making  is  only  a 
im  aus  of  making  the  constitution,  and  not 
ti  part  of  it.  It  ceased  when  it  had  done 
its  work  in  giving  the  constitution  It  does 
not  remain  as  part  of  what  it  has  made. 
My  opponents  position  is  as  absurd  as  it 
would  be  to  claim  that  God  must  now  bring 
animals  and  plants  into  being  by  miracle 
of  creation  or  that  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion must  set  forever,  and  be  forever  mak- 
ing constitutions. 

The  teachings  of  the  New  Testament 
harmonize  exactly  with  our  position  and 
illustrations.  Eph.,  IV:  "Christ  gave 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


miraculous  gifts  to  men.  He  grave  some  to 
be  apostles,  some  to  be  prophets,  some  to 
be  evangelists,  some  to  be  shepherds  and 
some  to  be  teachers."  These  apostles  and 
prophets,  were  extraordinary  powers  in  the 
church.  Their  work  was  necessarily  one 
accomplished  by  inspiration,  miraculous 
power  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  evange- 
lists, shepherds  and  teachers  were  endowed 
with  miraculous  powers  (hen,  for  such  power 
was  essential  to  their  work,  in  the  condition 
in  which  the  church  then  was.  All  these 
had  miraculous  powers,  spiritual  gifts.  How 
long  were  they  to  continue?  For  what  pur- 
pose were  these  miraculous  powers  given  ? 
.Paul  answers:  "For  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints,  unto  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
for  the  building  (the  work  of  the  ministry 
in  building)  of  the  body  of  Christ"  or  com- 
pleting the  organization  of  the  church — 
''until  we  all  come  in  to  the  unity  of  the  faith 
ind  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God" — 
or  until  ''the  faith" — the  word  of  God — the 
New  Testament  is  completed.  This  pas- 
jage  of  Scripture  explains,  definitely  and 
ilearly,  for  what  purpose  these  gifts  were 
jiven,  and  how  long  the}'  were  to  continue. 
They  were  given  to  furnish  the  saints  for 
the  work  of  the  minisfry  in  building  up  the 
organization  of  the  church,  and  were  to  re- 
main until  that  work  was  done,  or  until  all 
attained  to  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  the 
faith  is  perfected.  Then  they  ceased,  hav- 
ing accomplished  their  purpose.  There  can 
be  but  one  answer  to  this.  My  opponent 
must  show  that  the  "until"  refers  to  some- 
thing else  than  the  completion  of  the  organ- 
ization of  the  church,  and  the  completion 
of  the  word  of  God — the  New  Testament, 
and  show  that  the  work  of  these  gifts  was 
not  accomplished  iu  these  works,  and  that 
it  is  needt-d  now. 

My  position  is  still  more  fully  taught  in 
I.  Cor,  XII,  XII,  XIV.  The  apostle  in  XII, 
8,  9,  10,  and  28,  29,  30,  enumerates  the  gifts 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  bestowed  on  persons  in 
the  church:  I.  Word  of  wisdom.  II. 
Word  of  knowledge.  III.  The  faith— the 
word  of  God.  IV.  Gifts  of  healing.  V. 
Working  of  powers.  VI.  Prophecy.  VII. 
Discerning  of  spirits.  VIII.  Speaking  in 
different  tongues.  IX.  Power  to  interpret 
different  tongues.  These  miraculous  gifts 
made  persons :  I.  Apostles.  II.  Prophets. 
III.  Teachers.  IV.  Miraculous  powers. 
V.  Gifts  of  healing.  VI.  Helps.  VIE. 
Wise  counsellors.  VIII.  Speaking  in  diff- 
erent tongues.  IX.  In  te-pretation  of  diff- 
erent tongues.  He  then  says:  "Desire 
earnestly  the  best  of  these  spiritual  gifts" — 
while  it  is  the  order  in  the  church  to  exer- 
cise these  gifts — "but  nevertheless  I  show 
unto  you  a  more  excellent  way"— than  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  best  of  these  spiritual  gifts.  Ob- 
serve carefully  that  Paul,  after  exhorting  his 
brethren  to  desire  the  best  of  these  spiritual 
gifts  while  it  is  the  order  of  the  church  to 
exercise  spiritual  gifts,  declares  positively 
that  there  is  a  more  excellent  way  than  the 
exercise  of  the  very  best  of  these  spiritual 
gifts.  In  this  he  flatly  contradicts  the 
central  idea  of  Mornaonism,  which  teaches 


that  the  highest  condition  of  the  church  is 
the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts,  and 
that  the  state  of  the  church,  when  they  are 
not  exercised  is,  not  as  Paul  declares  "  the 
more  excellent  way,"  but  an  apostate  con- 
dition. 

Paul  proceeds  to  unfold  this  more  excel- 
lent way  in  what  is  the  XIII,  chapter  in  our 
English  Bible — this  way  that  is  more  excel- 
lent than  the  exercise  of  the  very  best  of 
these  spiritual  gifts,  which  my  opponent 
makes  the  all  iu  all  in  Christianity.  He 
declares  that  Christian  love,  Christian 
character  and  spirit,  are  the  great  purpose 
of  the  religion  of  Christ.  All  things — the 
highest  and  best  spiritual  gifts,  are  woi  1 1- 
less  unless  they  aid  iu  producing  Christian 
love,  Christian  spirit  and  character;  and 
are  valuable  only  as  they  aid  in  producing 
such  results.  He  then  unfolds  a  way  of 
producing  Christian  love,  Christian  spirit 
and  character,  that  is  better  than  the  exer- 
cise of  the  highest  and  best  of  these  spirit- 
ual gifts,  that  my  opponent  regards  as  the 
alpha  and  omega  of  Christianity.  He  de- 
clares that  Christian  love,  Christian  charac- 
ter and  spirit,  shall  remain  forever,  for  they 
are  the  gr^at  object  of  the  religion  of  Christ. 
"But  prophesy  ing'' all  utterances  by  inspir- 
ation ''shall  cease" — "speaking  in  different 
tongues,  shall  ce;ise" — that  is  all  miraculous 
powers  that  are  mere  siirns,  of  the  presence 
of  superhuman  power  shall  cease.  "Knowl- 
edge"— all  knowledge  by  inspiration  "shall 
cease,"  or  in  other  words,  when  that  more 
excellent  way  than  the  exercise  of  tiie  best 
of  these  spiritual  gifts  obtains,  all  miracu- 
lous powers  shall  cease. 

Paul  then  gives  the  reason  why  they 
shall  cease,  and  tells  when  they  shall  cease- 
We  come  now  to  a  passage  of  scripture  that 
is  more  frequently  perverted  and  worse 
perverted  than  almost  any  other  in  the 
word  of  God.  Paul  is  discussing  the  condi- 
tion of  the  church,  and  if  the  ordinary  in- 
terpretation be  true,  he  leaves  the  church 
entirely,  and  goes  up  into  heaven,  in  his 
discussion,  and  contrasts,  not  two  different 
states  of  the  church,  as  common  sense  de- 
mands, but  the  church  and  heaven.  Outside 
of  the  Bible,  such  an  idea  would  be  regard- 
ed as  preposterous  nonsense.  But  men 
seem  to  lay  one  side  all  sense,  when  study- 
ing the  Bible.  It  is  not  to  be  understood  as 
any  other  book  ;  but  is  to  be  made  as  unnat- 
ural and  fantastic  as  possible.  No  conceit 
is  too  farfetched,  too  unnatural  to  be  inject- 
ed into  Bibical  interpretation.  I  insist  that 
Paul  is  contrasting  two  conditions  of  the 
church.  One  when  spiritual  gifts  are  exer- 
cised, the  other  when  they  are  not  exercised. 
Both  states  are  states  of  the  church,  and  of 
course  here  on  earth  and  before  Christ 
gives  up  his  Messiahship,  and  the  church 
ceases  to  exist  as  an  institution,  on  earth, 
for  the  salvation  of  man  from  sin.  The 
passages  following  have  not  the  slightest 
reference  to  heaven,  or  to  anything  but  a 
condition  of  the  church  on  earth. 

The  apostle  declares:  "For  now" — that  \» 
during  the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts, 
the  present  state  of  the  church — "we  know 


22 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


in  part" — that  is  the  knowledge  imparted 
by  these  spiritual  gifts  is  but  partial — but  a 
fragment  of  revelation  each  time  they  are 
exercised— "and  prophesy  in  part" — that  is 
speaking  by  inspiration,  gives  but  a  frag- 
ment of  revelation  each  time  it  is  exercised 
— '  b  it  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come" 
• — when  the  ''-perfect  law  of  liberty"  of  James 
—when  that  which  makes  perfect  the  man 
of  God,  the  scriptures,  are  completed  in  the 
New  Testament — "then  that  which  is  in 
part"— the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts — 
these  partial  revelations  through  them 
"shall  be  done  away."  The  apostle  then  re- 
turns to  the  figure  used  in  the  XII  chapter, 
where  he  compared  the  church  to  the  human 
body,  and  personifies  the  church  by  his  own 
body,  and  its  development  by  his  own 
growth.  He  declares  that  just  as  he  "per- 
ceived as  a  child,  felt  as  a  child,  spoke  as  a 
child,  when  he  was  a  child,"  so  the  church, 
during  the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts, 
"perceives  as  a  child,  speaks  as  a  child, "for 
for  all  revelations  under  such  circum- 
stances must  be  fragmentary  and  broken. 
But  as  he  "put  away  childish  things  when 
he  became  a  man"  so  the  church  will  put 
away  these  childish  things,  the  exercise  of 
these  spiritual  gifts  when  it  passes  out  into 
the  condition  of  manhood,  when  it  is  under 
"the  perfect  law  of  liberty"  the  completed 
Testament  a  law  of  universal  truths,  suit- 
ed to  the  liberty  of  manhood. 

This  agrees  exactly  with  the  apostle's 
teaching  in  Eph.  IV,  ?>s  we  have  already 
seen.  The  apostle  continues:  "Now"  that 
is  during  the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts 
— "we" — that  is  all  believers — "see  as  in  a 
mirror  dimly" — these  partial  revelations, 
through  the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts, 
give  imperfect  knowledge— "but  then" — 
that  is  when  the  word  of  God  is  completed 
in  the  New  Testament — "we  shall  see  face 
to  face."  As  James  declares  :  "the  perfect 
law  of  liberty,"  the  New  Testament  is  a 
is  a  mirror,  arid  if  a  man  looks  into  it  and  is 
a  doer  of  what  it  requires  he  is  blessed. 
"Now,"  continues  the  apostle — that  is  dur- 
ing the  exercise  of  these  spiritual  gifts — "I 
know  in  part"— that  is  the  fragmentary  re- 
velations, given  through  the  exercise  of 
spiritual  gifts,  imparts  out  partial  knowl- 
edge— "I  prophesy  in  part" — that  is  inspir- 
ed speaking  through  these  spiritual  gifis  is 
partial  and  fragmentary — "but  then" — that 
is  when  the  word  of  God  is  completed  in  the 
New  Testament — "I  shall  know  even  as  I 
am  known" — that  is  the  church  shall  know 
what  it  ought  to  be,  just  as  the  Holy  Spirit 
knows  what  it  ought  to  be,  for  the  Holy 
Spirit  will  then  have  made  a  perfect  revela- 
tion of  the  matter.  The  apostle  closes  by 
declaring  that  "faith,"  the  faith,  God's 
perfected  word — "hope" — God's  perfected 
promises — "love"christian  spirit  and  char- 
acter, that  are  the  object  of  revelation, 
"shall  remain  forever,  but  the  greater  of 
these  is  love,  Christian  spirii  and  charac- 
ter" the  great  aim  and  purpose  of  all 
religion.  I  have  been  careful  to  unfold  this 
important  revelation,  because  it  cuts  up  by 
the  roots,  all  claim  of  inspiration  for  Joe 


Smith,  and  all  claim  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  of  divine  origin.  I  might  rest  my 
case  here. 

We  will  clinch  the  matter  however  by 
putting  Mormonism  to  the  test  it  challenges. 
Has  Mormonism  revealed  a  single  new  idea, 
not  contained  in  the  Bible?  Has  it  given  a 
better  expression  to  a  single  idea  revealed 
in  the  Bible,  than  is  given  by  the  Bible? 
Man  is  constitutionally  a  religious  being. 
Without  any  revelation  his  religious  nature 
would  have,  and  ever  has  had  its  expression 
in  religious  ideas  and  system  of  religion. 
Into  these  systems  of  religion  man  has 
wrought  certain  catholic  religious  ideas  of 
his  religious  nature.  Religions  differ  in 
the  number  of  these  ideas  that  they  contain, 
and  in  their  expression  of  them.  All  human 
systems  of  religion  are  faulty  in  these  par- 
ticulars. I.  They  do  not  contain  all  of  the 
catholic  ideas  of  man's  nature.  II.  They 
do  not  express  these  ideas  perfectly.  III. 
They  do  not  expand  them  into  universally 
applicable  principles.  All  human  religions 
are  national  or  race  religions.  They  are  not 
religions  for  all  mankind.  IV.  They  do 
not  unite  these  ideas  into  a  harmonious 
system.  V.  They  do  not  expand  the  sys- 
tem into  a  universal  and  absolute  religion. 
VI.  They  corrupt  these  ideas  with  error 
and  evil.  VII.  They  incorporate  error  and 
evil  into  the  system  as  cardinal  ideas.  We 
claim  for  Christianity  I.  It  contains  every 
catholic  religious  idea  of  mail's  religious 
nature.  II.  It  expresses  each  and  every 
idea  perfectly.  III.  It  expands  each  and 
every  idea  into  an  eternal  truth,  a  univer- 
sally applicable  principle.  IV.  It  unites 
all  of  these  ideas  into  a  harmonious  system. 
V.  It  strips  these  ideas  and  the  sys'tem  of 
all  error  and  imperfection,  with  which 
human  systems  has  polluted  them.  VI. 
It  expands  the  system  into  an  absolute 
religion,  a  religion  for  humanity. 

If  this  position  be  true,  then  a  man  can 
not  outgrow  Christianity.  It  is  the  work  of 
all  study  to  reach  universally  applicable 
principles,  such  as  the  law  of  gravitation, 
or  theCoperuican  law  of  the  universe.  When 
research  has  attained  to  such  principles,  it 
has  reached  the  ultimate  in  that  direction. 
It  can  never  outgrow  such  a  principle.  It 
will  never  need  anything  in  its  stead.  It 
can  only  learn  more  of  the  scope  and  grasp, 
the  ramifications  of  these  universal  truths, 
throughout  the  infinite  universe,  but  it  can 
never  outgrow  them.  It  will  never  need 
anything  in  their  stead.  In  Christianity, 
we  have  a  system  composed  of  such  eternal 
truths,  such  universally  applicable  prin- 
ciples. Man  can  never  outgrow  them  not 
even  a  "Re-organized  Mormon."  He  will 
never  need  new  truths,  new  revelations  in 
addition  to  them,  nor  in  their  stead.  If 
man  progresses  throughout  eternity,  he 
may  be  able  to  understand  the  scope  and 
grasp  of  these  eternal  truths,  the^e  univer- 
sally applicable  principles  better,  but  he 
will  never  outgrow  them,  nor  will  he  need 
something  in  their  stead,  no  more  than  he 
will  outgrow  the  law  of  gravitation,  and 
need  something  in  its  stead.  This  forever 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


23 


silences  and  renders  absurd   the  claim-  of 
Mormon  revelations. 

.The  catholic  ideas  of  man's  religious  nature 
are  these,  I.  The  self-existent,  independent, 
self-sustaining,  eternal  and  absolute  Being, 
the  origin  of  all  derived  existences,  and  the 
cause  of  all  phenomena,  is  Absolute  iSpirit, 
or  God.  Has  Mormonism  any  idea  to  take 
the  place  of  this?  Does  it  give  a  better  rev- 
elation of  it  than  is  given  in  the  Bible? 
II..  This  Absolute  Spirit  created,  controls 
and  sustains  all  things  in  the  boundless 
universe.  Has  Mormonism  a  revelation  to 
take  the  place  of  this  truth  ?  Does  it  gi  ve  a 
better  revelation  of  this  truth  than  is  given 
in  the  Bible  ?  III.  Spirit  existence.  God 
who  is  absolute  spirit;  Christ  who  is  a 
divine  spirit;  the  Holy  spirit,  a  divine 
spirit;  angels;  spirit  in  man.  Has  Mormo- 
nism any  ideas  to  take  the  place  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject? 
Does  it  give  a  better  revelation  of  them  than 
we  find  in  the  Bible?  IV.  The  immortality 
of  man's  spirit  and  all  spirits.  Has  Mormon- 
ism given  us  any  new  ideas  on  this  topic? 
Does  it  reveal  any  truth  not  in  the  Bible,  or 
better  than  it  is  expressed  in  the  Bible?  V. 
Freedom  of  volition  in  all  acts  of  the  spirit. 
Has  Mormonism  any  new  revelations  on  this 
topic,  not  in  the  Bible?  Or  does  it  express 
the  truth  better  than  the  Bible?  VI.  The 
division  of  all  things  into  good  or  evil  j  nil 
ideas  into  true  or  false;  all  acts  into  right 
or  wrong;  all  characters  into  righteous  or 
wicked.  What  new  revelations  has  Mormon- 
ism given  us  on  these  matters,  that  better  ex- 
press this  truth?  VII.  Clear,  simple,  in- 
fallible standard  for  deciding  what  i.s  right 
and  wrong,  trueand  false.  Has  Mormon  ism 
given  us  a  single  new  idea  in  regard  r,o  this 
matter?  VIII.  Responsibility  to  God? 
Has  Mormonism  added  a  single  thought  in 
regard  to  this ?  IX.  Accountability  to  God? 
What  light  have  we  from  Mormonism,  on 
this  topic,  not  in  the  Bible?  X.  Retribu- 
tion here  and  hereafter.  Has  Mprmonism 
given  us  a  single  new  idea  on  this  important 
topic?  XI.  God's  providence,  as  our  Fath- 
er in  heaven.  Has  Mormonism  added  a 
ghost  of  an  idea  to  our  knowledge  on  that 
subject?  XII.  Prayer  and  answer  to  pray- 
er. What  new  revelations  has  Mormonism 
given  us  on  that  question  ?  XIII.  Revela- 
tions from  God,  of  truth  man  unaided  could 
not  attain.  What  new  idea  in  regard  to 
revelation  does  Mormoni&m  give  to  man  ? 
XIV.  Inspiration  of  chosen  men  as  medi- 
ums of  revelation.  What  new  light  have 
we  from  Mormonism  on  this  topic?  XV. 
Miracles  as  proof  of  inspiration  and  revela- 
tion. What  new  truth  has  Mormonism  in 
regard  to  miracles?  XVI.  Prophecy. 
What  new  ideas  in  regard  to  prophecy  has 
Mormonism  given  to  the  world?  XVII. 
Sacrifice  for  sin.  What  light  have  the  pre- 
tended Mormon  revelations  thrown  on  this 
topic?  XVIII.  The  expiation  or,  atone- 
ment that  Christ  made  for  mankind.  Have 
Mormon  pretended  revelations  given  us  one 
new  thought  on  this  central  idea  of  Christian- 
ity? XIX.  The  mediatorship  of  Christ.  Has 
Mormonism  given  to  the  world  one  particle 


of  light  on   that  topic,  not  in   the  Bible? 

XX.  A  leader  in  religion  and  redemption. 
What  light  from  MIT  non  revelations  here? 

XXI.  A  perfect  embodiment  of  teaching, 
and  example  in  life.     Has  Mormonism  Driven, 
us  a  ray  of  additional  lijfht  on  the  subji-ct? 

XXII.  An  object  of  faith  devotion  and  love? 
What    light  does  Mormonism  add   to   the 
teachings  of  the  Bible.'    XXIII.     Incarna- 
tion of  Jesus  as  divine  sacrifice,  m«d:    i<>r, 
and  object  of  lov°  and  devotion.     I>        Mor- 
monism add  a  single  thought  on  tlii  -  :    ,>io  ? 
XXIV.     iSin  as  a  fact  in    man's  life  a  >d  ex- 
perience.    Its  nature,  its  results.  ior- 
monism   thrown  one  particle  of  aUiiiuonal 
light  over  this  dark  theme?     XXV.    Regen- 
eration of  life,  spirit  and   character.      Have 
we  any    additional    light  on  this  glorious 
idea  of  Christianity,  from  the  jack-o-lantern 
of  Mormonism?    XXVI.     Forgiveness  of  sin 
on  repentance  and  reformation.     What  new 
revelations  on  this  cheering  truth,  have  w» 
from  Mormonism?    XXVII.  A  life  of  right- 
eousness moulded  and  directed  by  religion. 
Does  Mormonism  give  us   new  revelations 
here?    XXVIII.    The  life  of  each  individ- 
ual,   the    family,    s  ciety  in  all   relations, 
nations,  mankind,  are  to  be  regenerated  by 
the  pure  religion  of  Christ.    Do  we  owe  any- 
thing to  Mormon  revelations  on  this  subject? 

XXIX.  The    regulation    of   all    thought, 
action,  and   life,  in  every  relation  of  life, 
and  sphere  of  action,  by  this  religion.  What 
new  ideas  does   Mormonism  give   us  here? 

XXX.  Each  person  elevates  himself  in  love 
and    righteousness,    by   giving    himself  in 
loving  self-sacrifice  for  others.      Does  Mor- 
luonisin    give    a    new    revelation    on     this 
thought?     XXXI.  Man  is  to  be  a  co-worker 
with  Mod   in  the  great  work  of  redemption. 
What  new  revelati»n  have  we  from  Mormon- 
ism on  this    topic?     XXXII.     Man   in  the 
mental  and  moral  likeness  of  God.      What 
new  revelations  here?    We  ask  Mormonism. 
XXIII.     Endless  growth,  development  and 
progress    of  all   intelligences, i towards    the 
absolute  perfection  of  their  Creator.     What 
new  revelations  have  we  here?    We  ask   the 
Mormon.     XXXIV.     The  resurrection  and 
glorification   of  man's  nature.      What   new 
revelations    on    this   theme  have   we  from 
Mormonism?    XXXV.     The  universal   l-a- 
therhood    of  God.      What  new   light  does 
Morrnonism   give  us  in  regard  to  this  topic? 
XXXVI.      The    universal   brotherhood    of 
man.     What  new  revelations  on  t!  is  i  lu-nie 
has    Mormonism  given  us?    XXXVII.     A. 
system  of  truth  to  be   believed,  of  worship 
to  be  performed,  of  rules  of  life  to  be   lived. 
Has  Mormonism  in  its  pretended  revelations 
added  the  ghost  of  an  idea  to  what  is  in  t  he 
Bible?  XXXVIII.    The  church  of  Christ  as 
a  perfect  organization,  for  the  maintainanco 
of   this   religion,  and   man's  culture   in  it. 
What  new  truth  has  Mormonism  given  us 
here?  Will  our  opponent  answer  these  ques- 
tions? 

He  dare  not  contradict  common  sense  and 
Gods  word,  in  claiming  that  all  of  the  pre- 
tended revelations  of  Mormonism,  have  sug- 
gested a  ghost  of  a  new  truth,  in  regard  to 
one  of  these  great  ideas  revealed  in  the 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Bible.  There  is  left  for  him  one  refuge.  He 
may  say  that  he  does  not  claim  that  revela- 
tions are  needed  to  add  to  the  truths  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible,  or  to  express  them  bet- 
ter, but  the  spiritual  gifts  are  needed  to 
enable  man  to  do  the  work  that  the  religion 
of  Christ  and  the  revelations  of  the  Bible 
demand  of  him.  That  inspiration  and  new 
revelations  are  needed  to  aid  man  in  such 
work,  and  to  enable  him  to  do  it.  That 
human  wisdom  is  not  always  sufficient  to  the 
task  of  developing  and  applying  the  univers- 
ally appiicabe  truths  of  revelation.  Nor 
to  the  task  of  deciding  what  should  be  done 
in  applying  them.  That  revelations,  inspir- 
ation, spiritual  gifts,  are  needed  to  supply 
this  want  of  human  weakness.  Also  to 
authenticate  and  establish  th«  divine  origin 
of  Christianity.  That  as  spiritual  gifts  were 
needed  as  helps  and  a  sign  of  the  divinity 
of  the  rel'gion  of  Christ  anciently,  so  they 


are  needed  now.  This  Is  the  only  refuge 
left  him.  Should  he  attempt  refuge  there, 
we  will  soon  drive  him  out  of  that  last  hid- 
ing place. 

Now  will  our  opponent  meet  these  two  po- 
sitions. I.  The  Scriptures  te^ch  that  inspir- 
ation revelation  and  miraculous  power  ex- 
isted for  a  definite  purpose,  the  revelation 
of  a  perfect  system  of  truth.  That  system 
of  truth  was  completed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Inspiration  revelation  and  miracle 
ceased  having  accomplished  Iheir  purpose. 
Therefore  all  claims  of  later  revelations  is 
absurd  and  unscriptural.  II.  Cb.ristianily 
contains  all  religious  ideas  and  expresses 
them  perfectly.  Further  revelation  is  need- 
less. Will  he  grapple  with  these  positions 
like  a  man  and  cease  his  jingling  interpreta- 
tion of  prophecies  that  have  not  more  refer- 
ence to  Mormonism  than  the  frauds  of  a 
gang  of  counterfietera. 


TILE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


25 


THIRD    SPEECH    OF    MR.  KELLEY. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :  When  my  time  was  called 
upon  last  evening  I  was  citing  proofs  from 
the  scriptures,  relative  to  the  establishment 
and  occupancy  of  a  people  upon  the  Ameri- 
can continent. 

I  turn  and  read  again  from  Deuteronomy 
83  : 13-18 : 

"And  of  Joseph  he  said,  Blessed  of  the  Lord  be  his 
"laud,  for  the  precious  things  of  heaven,  for  the  dew, 
"and  for  the  deep  that  coucheth  beneath,  and  lor  the 
"precious  fruits  brought  forth  by  the  sun,  and  for  the 
"precious  things  put  forth  by  the  moon,  and  for  the 
"chief  things  of  the  ancient  mountains,  and  for  the 
"precious  things  of  the  lasting  hills,  and  for  the  pre- 
"cious  things  of  the  earth  and  fullness  thereof,  and  for 
"the  good  will  of  Him  that  dwelt  in  the  bush:  let  the 
"  blessing  come  upon  the  head  of  Joseph,  and  upon  the 
"top  of  the  head  of  him  that  was  separated  from  his 
"beihren.  His  glory  is  like  the  flrstlingof  his  bullock, 
"and  his  horns  a:  e  like  the  horns  of  unicorns:  with  them 
**he  shall  push  the  people  together  to  the  ends  of  the 
"earth:  and  they  are  the  ten  thousands  of  Ephraim, 
"and  they  are  the  thousands  of  Mauasseh  " 

Here  we  have  such  a  full  and  definite 
description  of  Joseph's  land — where  the 
branches — posterity  of  Joseph — were  to  pass 
to,  and  inherit,  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
make  a  mistake  in  applying  it  to  the 
country,  unless  we  shall  while  trying  to  do 
so  be  determined  in  our  minds  at  all  risks 
to  preserve  to  our  souls  some  cherished  and 
petted  theory  or  selfish  institution,  rather 
than  to  approach  fairly  and  openly  the 
light.  It  is  a  land  of  broad  fields  and  ex- 
tended territory.  Of  great  diversities  of 
soil,  climate  and  temperature.  It  must  ex- 
tend through  and  occupy  in  the  different 
zones.  Here  are  the  products  of  the  earth 
set  out  in  their  fulness.  Celebrated  for  its 
fruits  and  luxurious  vegetation,  "  put  forth 
by  the  sun  and  moon."  A  land  of  the  chief 
minerals,  "  chief  things  of  the  ancient 
mountains;"  for  the  wealth  and  products 
of  its  lakes  and  rivers,  "the  deep  that 
coucheth  beneath  ;  "  and  for  the  blessings 
of  heaven,  the  revelations  of  God — verse  16, 
'i  For  the  good  will  of  him  that  dwelt  in  the 
bush ; "  and  then  it  was  far  away  from 
Canaan,  "  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  ever- 
lasting hills." 

Associate  this  description  now,  with  the 
promised  blessing  upon  the  children  of 
Joseph,  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  Gen.  48: 
15-20,  where  the  land  is  located  in  the  midst 
of  the  earth  ;  which,  when  we  remember 
that  the  patriarch  stood  in  the  country 
lying  on  the  Mediterranean  and  near  to 
Canaan,  could  not  with  any  sense  of  justice 
or  fitness  to  the  statement  be  made  to  apply 
to  that  land,  and  it  will  be  possible  to  in- 
telligently point  it  out. 

The  children  also  were  to  "  grow  into  a 
multitude."  Wherever  the  land  is,  a  mul- 
titude of  people  will  doubtless  be  found 
who  are  the  descendants  of  Joseph  of 
Egypt.  "  And  he  blessed  them  that  day, 
Baying,  "  In  thee  shall  Israel  bless,  saying, 


God  make  thee  as  Ephraim  and  Manasseh." 
This  accords  with  the  description  of  the 
blessing  of  Joseph's  land  by  Moses.  It  is 
one  greatly  to  be  desired  ;  choice  above 
every  other  land,  as  was  the  blessing  of  the 
lads  :  so  much  so  that  it  would  be  the  high- 
est thing  to  bless  others  as  was  the  blessing 
of  these  children.  The  other  sous  of  Jacob 
had  their  blessing  and  inheritance  in  Can- 
aan, and  how  could  it  ever  be  truly  said, 
"God  bless  thee  as  Ephraim  and  Manas- 
seh," if  theirs  was  thus  confined  to 
Canaan  also? 

Pursuing  the  examination  however,  in 
search  of  this  promised  land  and  the  hue  of 
Joseph,  I  next  refer  you  to  the  prediction 
with  reference  to  the  departure  from  Jeru- 
salem of  the  people  who  evidently  were  led 
to  the  land  spoken  of  by  these  inspired  meu 
and  the  manner  and  time  of  their  coming. 
Jeremiah  48  : 32,  "  O  vine  of  Sibmah,  I  will 
"  weep  for  thee  with  the  weeping  of  Jazer  : 
11  Thy  plants  are  gone  over  tlte  sea,  they 
"  reach  even  to  the  sea  of  Jazer  :  the  spoiler 
"is  fallen  upon  thy  summer  fruits,  and 
"  upon  thy  vintage."  Here  is  introduced 
under  the  figure  of  a  choice  vine  the  dis- 
persion of  the  line  of  Israel's  beloved,  and 
an  introduction  of  the  fact  that  they  should 
pass  from  the  then  inheritance  to  the  sea, 
and  over  the  sea  ;  as  is  also  more  specifically 
set  forth  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  1G  :  8,  where 
it  is  evident  the  same  event  is  referred  to 
of  which  Jeremiah  has  given  evidence,  lit 
says  :  "  For  the  fields  of  Heshbon  languish, 
"and  the  vine  of  Sibmah  :  the  lords  of  the 
"  heathen  have  broken  down  the  principal 
"  plants  thereof,  they  are  come  even  unto 
"  Jazer,  they  wandered  through  the  wilder- 
"  ness  :  her  branches  are  stretched  out,  they 
"  are  gone  over  the  sea." 

Now  pass  in  your  mind  over  the  sea,  from 
the  old  country  of  Jazer  on  the  east  of  the- 
Mediterranean,  in  either  direction  (  so  as  to 
puss  over  the  sea),  and  tell  me  what  land 
you  shall  find  and  the  only  one  you  can  lind 
that  answers  the  description  of  Joseph's 
land  as  foretold  by  Israel  and  Moses . 

The  phrase,  "vine  of  Sibmah,"  may  be 
understood  by  comparing  it  with  the  saying 
of  the  Lord  in  the  second  chapter,  20uii  and 
21st  verses,  of  Jeremiah  :  "  For  of  old  time 
"I  have  broken  thy  yoke,  and  burst  thy 
"  bands ;  and  thou  saidest,  thou  wilt  not 
"transgress;  when  upon  every  high  hill 
"and  every  green  tree  thou  wanderest 
"playing  the  harlot.  Yet  I  had  planted 
"  thee  a  noble  vine,  wholly  a  right  seed : 
"How  then  art  thou  turned  into  the  dege- 
"  nerate  plant  of  a  strange  vine  unto  me  '/  " 
Sibmah  refers  to  that  to  be  desired,  pleas- 
ant, choice.  And  the  "-vine  of  Sibmah," 
is  properly  interpreted,  "a  noble  vine,"  "a 
right  seed,"  which  was  true  of  Ephraim  ) 
and  Mauusseh. 


26 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Turning  again  to  the  evidences  upon  the 
main  thread  of  our  search,  I  refer  you  to  the 
49th  of  Jeremiah,  30th  to  33rd  verses  inclu- 
sive ;  where  he  gives  the  excited  and  hur- 
ried warning  which  God  had  commanded 
him  to  deliver,  just  a  short  time  before  the 
king  of  Babylon  brings  desolation  upon  the 
country  of  Jerusalem.  The  language  of  the 
prophet  fully  discloses  the  troublous  scenes 
which  suddenly  followed :  "  Flee,  get  you 
far  uif,  dwell  deep,"  (that  is  go  unobserved, 
secret), 

"O  ye  inhabitants  of  Razor,  saith  the  Lord  :  for  Ne- 
bucnadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  hath  taken  counsel 
'a  ainst  you,  and  hath  conceived  a  purpose  against 
'you  Arise,  pet  you  up  unto  the  wealthy  na- 
'tion  that  dweljeth"  without  care,  saith  the  Lord, 
'which  have  neither  pa  es  nor  bars,  which  dwell 
alone.  Ami  their  camels  shall  be  a  booty,  and  the 
'nuiltitii''e  of  their  cattle  a  spoil:  and  1  will  scatter 
'into  all  winds  them  that  are  in  the  utmost  corners ; 
'and  I  will  bring  their  calamity  from  all  sides  thereof, 
'saith  the  Lord.  And  Ilazor  shall  be  a  dwelling  for 
'drapi'iis.  and  a  desolation  forever:  there  siiall  no 
'man  abide  there,  nor  any  son  of  inttn  dwell  in  it." 

The  warning  to  these  people  was  to  get 
out  of  the  reach  of  the  King  of  Babylon 
who  at  that  time  held  complete  sway  in  the 
countries  of  the  east,  and  they  were  prom- 
ised that  if  they  would  obey  the  voice  and 
hearken  unto  the  Lord,  they  should  be  led 
to  a  wealthy  nation,  a  land  descriptive  of 
Joseph's  land,  and  which,  had  been  afore- 
time inhabited  and  whose  inhabitants 
dwelt  without  bars  ; — with  nothing  to  pre- 
vent persons  who  should  go  thereof  taking 
possession, — showing  that  the  cattle  and 
camels  would  be  a  prey  to  be  had  for  the 
taking. 

Such  a  country  as  this  existed  at  some 

Rlace  upon  the  earth  at  the  time  of  the  de- 
vering  of  the  warning  prophecy  and  of  the 
captivity  referred  to,  unless  the  prophecy 
is  false.  Where  was  it?  The  Book  of  Mor- 
mon comes  in  with  the  new  light  reflected 
in  1829,  and  shows  that  at  the  time,  such  a 
country  existed  upon  the  American  con- 
tinent. 

It  had  to  that  date  been  inhabited  by  a 
people  who  were  led  here  from  the  plains 
of  Shinar  at  the  time  of  the  confounding  of 
the  languages  ;  and  who  had  been  greatly 
blessed  and  enriched  and  had  builded  cities 
and  towns  and  earthworks,  and  had  been 
rich  111  cattle  and  camels  and  all  kinds  of 
animals,  and  in  mines  and  mining.  But 
had  l>een  at  this  time  hurriedly  gathered 
together  by  their  leaders  from  every  part 
of  the  land",  leaving  their  cities  unkept,  the 
ores  in  process  of  removal  in  the  mines, 
their  herds  and  their  flocks  free  to  wander, 
while  they  engaged  in  mortal  combat,  stir- 
red to  the  most  desperate  frenzy  by  animo- 
sity and  revenge,  until  the  country  had 
become  desolate  of  inhabitants. 

Ah  !  but  says  my  opponent,  this  comes 
from  the  Book  of  Mormon,  it  is  notevidence. 
But  I  shall  not  leave  the  testimony  here. 
I  refer  to  it  to  show  you  that  so  early  as 
1829,  when  the  book  went  into  the  hands  of 
the  publisher,  this  work  cast  the  new  light 
upon  the  nation  and  peoples  of  the  world, 
when  all  were  in  ignorance  and  darkness; 
not  only  with  regard  to  the  former  habita- 


tion of  the  continent,  but  also  the  interpre- 
tation of  these  prophecies.  For  my  proofs, 
I  shall  bring  before  you  the  corroborative 
testimonies  which  have  come  to  light 
through  the  explorations  and  archaeological 
discoveries  of  the  continent,  as  set  forth 
and  published  in  the  first  scientific  and 
historical  works  of  the  times,  and  which 
could  not  have  been  known  to  the  author 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  if  it  is  claimed  to  be 
the  work  of  man  only. 

Upon  last  evening  it  was  repeatedly  chal- 
lenged, to  point  to  a  new  thing  whicb 
reflected  light  to  the  people  from  the  work. 
I  had  nevertheless  just  referred  him  to  the 
new  light  thrown  upon  the  prophecy  of  the 
Master  at  Jerusalem.  Here  is  another  that 
stands  out  boldly  and  sublime  as  though 
flashed  by  the  inspired  shaft  from  the 
heavenly  realms ;  and  were  it  material  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
work,  I  could  gather  from  its  brilliant  pages 
ten  thousand  reflections  of  its  rays,  which 
are  for  the  elevation  of  man,  the  encourage- 
ment, consolation  and  spiritual  growth  of 
the  Christian  as  he  wrestles  with  the  evils 
of  life,  and  which  are  not  attained  by  the 
reading  of  any  other  work.  But  suppose  I 
could  not  show  a  single  new  truth.  How 
could  it  affect  the  argument  as  to  whether 
God  revealed  himself  to  the  people  -upon 
this  jaontinent,  and  that  the  result  of  such 
revealment  were  not  teachings,  "entitled 
to  the  respect  and  belief"  of  all  the  people 
who  believe  in  the  partial  record  that  is 
left  to  us  of  the  will  of  heaven  as  <riven  to 
the  people  on  the  other  continent,/  Will 
he  answer  the  question  for  you?  His  rin- 
ging of  changes  on  the  word  Mormon  and 
"Mormonism,"  will  hardly  answer  him  as 
argument  even  with  half  thinking  people. 
If  this  record  is  what  it  purports  to  be,  all 
of  it  except  about  75  pages,  was  in  existence 
as  a  matter  of  history,  prior  to  the  time 
the  revelator  was  at  Patmos,  and  the 
greater  part,  long  prior  to  the  dawning  of 
the  Christian  era.  The  people  by  whom 
much  of  it  was  written  were  also  to  a  degree 
in  customs,  manners,  and  education,  com- 
parable with  those  who  wrote  much  of  the 
Bible.  Should  it  be  thought  wonderful 
then  that  we  can  find  often  in  its  pages  a 
similarity  of  thought  and  style? 

I  know  the  position  has  been  assumed  by 
my  opponent,  that  he  has  a  right  to  set  up 
and  affirm  what  he  thinks  the  principles  of 
my  faith  are,  or  of  the  body  I  represent  in 
this  discussion,  and  then  to  make  a  grand 
lunge  at  these  supposed  views  as  though 
he  were  battling  down  my  arguments. 

But  he  will  find  out  before  the  close  of 
the  sixteen  sessions  that  I  lead  in  my  own  af- 
firmatives, and  have  a  different  source  from 
which  to  gather  and  elucidate  my  faith, 
than  the  brazen  works  of  falsehood  of  Howe, 
Hyde,  Tucker,  Beadle,  Stenhouse,  Bennett, 
Ford,  et  al,  by  the  score,  who  by  garbling. 
falsifying,  inuendo  and  deceit,  have  sought 
to  make  the  faith  of  the  Saints,  (which  is 
righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  theHoiy 
Ghost,  as  was  the  kingdom  of  God  with 
the  apostles),  to  be  a  coarse  and  "sensual 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


27 


system."  And  by  way  of  a  reminder 
I  will  tell  him  here  and  now,  that  it  will 
avail  nothing  for  his  side  to  set  up  imagin- 
ary men  of  chaff  and  straw  at  which  to 
make  a  show  of  fight.  I  claim  to  be  found- 
ed upon  the  rock,  the  which,  neither  fog, 
bluster,  dust  nor  ashes  will  startle  or  move, 
and  against  which  slanderous  stories,  cal- 
umny, abuse  and  vilifying  can  make  no 
impression.  Returning,  however,  to  my 
affirmative  argument,  I  invite  your  con- 
sideration to  a  thought  that  may.  arise  in 
the  minds  of  some  as  to  whether  or  not  at 
the  time  of  these  last  prophecies,  there  lived 
at,  or  in  the  country  of  Jerusalem,  any  of  the 
posterity  of  Joseph  of  Egypt,  it  was  not 
as  may  have  been  imagined  by  some  that 
these  tribes  had  their  respective  bound- 
cries  and  there  was  no  intermingling  in 
their  living  and  their  marriages.  It  was- 
common  for  persons  of  different  tribes  to 
inhabit  in  the  territory  of  other  tribes.  In 
1  Chron.  9:3  it  is  stated:  "And in  Jerusalem 
dwelt  of  the  children  of  Judah,  and  of  the 
children  of  Benjamin,  and  of  the  children. 
of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh." 

For  further  evidence  on  this  point  I  cite 
you  to  1  Chron.  7:28;  2  Chron.  15:8,9;  17:2; 
and  30:18.  It  will  not  do  then  to  take  the 
position  that  the  prophet's  warning  was  to 
be  heeded  by  some  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  on- 
ly, and  that  it  was  thus  fulfilled  in  passing 
out  of  the  land,  and  that  none  of  the  oth- 
ers of  Israel  improved  the  opportunity. 

The  other  prophecies  relating  to  subse- 
quent events  are  in  conflict  with  such  an 
idea  or  interpretation.  There  were  in  the 
city  and  country  of  Jerusalem  at  this  time, 
those  of  other  tribes,  and  particularly 
Ephraim  and  Manassen. 

Here,  I  call  to  your  mind  a  summary  of  the 
proofs  I  have  made  so  far  in  this  line,  not  one 
of  which  the  negative  has  even  noticed  to 
this  time.  He  has  been  waxing  strong  else- 
where, trying  to  draw  comfort  from  the  use 
of  a  few  choice  phrases  applied  in  a  derisive 
manner  to  the  church  and  people  I  repre- 
sent, tind  to  prove  to  you  that  God  could  not 
reveal  himself  to  the  people  ofthis  conti- 
nent, because  by  the  action  of  a  few  persons 
who  lived  a  few  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  the  apostles,  and  who  got  togeth- 
er, collected  as  many  copies  of  the  manu- 
script of  the  apostles  as  they  could  find,  and 
after  assorting  them  according  to  their  judg- 
ment, made  a  book  and  called  it  the  Book, 
or  "The  Bible;"  and  thus  forever  shut 
Deity  out.  Don't  fail  to  gather  the  idea! 
they  shut  off  the  means  of  communication 
before  they  had  heard  whether  Deity  ac- 
cepted their  work  as  containing  all  the 
word  of  God.  And  now  my  opponent  oc- 
cupies the  ridiculous  position  of  stating 
that  this  compilation  and  collation  con- 
tains all  that  God  ever  did,  or  ever  will 
give  for  the  instruction  of  men.  It  is  a 
terribly  false  and  superstitious  belief,  and 
has  been  the  means  of  making  more  infidels 
than  any  other  one  thing.  But  I  shall  par- 
ticularly notice  this  hereafter,  and  pass  now 
to  the  proposed  summary. 

I  have  so  far  shown: 


1.  That  it  is  according  to  the  expressed 
will  of  heaven   to  make  known  to  man  in 
every  nation  His  will,  and  that  all  should- 
seek  after  and  find  Him. 

2.  That   other    nations   than   the    Jews 
have  sought  after  and  found  Him,  and  we 
have  not  their  record  in  the  Bible. 

3.  That  in  the  days  of  the  Patriarchs, 
and  of  Moses,  and  of  the  Prophets,   there 
were  express  predictions  to  the  effect  that 
a  line  or  remnant. of  the  seed  of  Joseph 
should  change  their  inheritance  from  Pal- 
estine, to  a  country  that  far  exceeded  it  in 
all  that  is  calculated  to  make  a  land  desira- 
ble; and  that  the  new  country  was  far  from 
Canaan. 

4.  That    such  a  people   did    leave   the 
country  of  Palestine  in   the  time  of    the 
reign  of   Zedekiah,   King  of   Judah,    and 
started  for  a  land  of  this  description,  pass- 
ing covertly  to  and  over  the  sea,  to  a  land 
beyond  the  borders  of  Africa. 

I  shall  now  enter  upon  a'nother  line  of 
proofs  and  show  that  the  people  did  not 
only  thus  leave  Palestine,  but  also  show 
more  particularly  where  they  went  to,  and 
what  was  said  they  should  do  after  they 
arrived  upon  the  (to  them),  •'  promised 
land."  Referring  to  the  prophecy  of  Eze- 
kiel,  37:15-28,  we  find  a  clear  and  explicit 
statement  made  with  regard  to  an  event  to 
take  place  in  the  earth,  and  one  particular 
thing  which  was  to  precede  this  notable 
event : 

"The  word  of  the  Lord  came  again  unto  me  saying, 
'moreover,  thou  son  of  man,  take  thee  one  stick  and 
|  write  upon  it  for  Judah,  and  for  the  c'nildren  of  Is- 
'  rael  his  companions;  then  take  another  stick,  and 
'  write  upon  it  for  Joseph,  the  stick  of  Ephiahn,  and 
'  for  all  the  house  of  Israel  his  companions  :  And  join 
'themoueto  another  into  one  *tic,k :  and  they  shall 
'become  one  in  thy  ha»d.  And  when  the  children  of 
'thy  people  shall  speak  unto  th"^  saving-,  wilt  thou 
'  not  shew  us  what  thou  meanest  by  these?  say  unto 
'tliem,  Thus  saith  the  "Lord  God;  BchoM,  I  will  take 
'the  stick  of  Joseph  which  is  in  the  hnnd  f  Kphraim, 
'and  the  tribes  of  Isiael  his  fellows,  and  will  put  ihem 
'with  him,  even  with  the  stick  of  Judah  nud  niuke 
'them  one  stick  and  they  shall  be  one  in  mine  hand. 
'  And  the  s'icks  whereon  thou  writest  sha'l  be  in  thine 
'hand  before  their  eyes.  And  say  unto  them,  Thus 
'saith  the  Lord  God  ;  Behold,  I  will  t'ike  the  children 
'of  Israel  f-om  among  the  heathen,  whither  they  be 
'gone,  and  will  gather  them  on  every  side,  and  bring 
'  them  into  their  own  land." 

If  in  this  prophecy  it  shall  be  concluded 
that  the  particular  sticks,  can  have  no  inter- 
est or  signification,  certainly  the  writing 
upon  them  must.  The  writing  upon  one  of 
these  sticks  was  for  Judah,  to  represent  the 
line,  evidently,  through  which  it  came,  and 
may  be  fairly  and  truly  interpreted  to  mean 
the  scriptures  which  came  through  that 
line.  The  writing  upon  the  other  was  for 
Joseph,  and  complimentary  by  reason  of 
the  blessing  upon  his  sons  long  prior,  called 
the  stick  of  Ephraim  ;  and  may  fairly  bo 
interpreted  to  refer  to  some  like  writing 
which  should  come  through  the  line  of 
Joseph.  Verse  19  shows,  that  the  Lord 
should  at  some  time  in  the  divine  economy 
use  these  together  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  purposes ;  and  verses  22  and 
23,  show  what  these  purposes  are,  and 
at  what  time  the  sticks  or  writings  were  to 
*"»  'oiiied  together,  i.  e.,  at  the  time  de- 


28 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


clared  by  the  prophet  when,  "  the  envy  of 
Ephraim  shall  depart  and  the  adversaries 
of  Judah  shall  be  cut  off."  "Ephraim  shall 
not  envy  Judah,  and  Judah  shall  not  vex 
Ephraim."  Isaiah  11:13;  and  more  par- 
ticularly with  regard  to  the  time  and  event 
seethe  instruction  in  verse  12 :  "And  he 
shall  set  up  an  ensign  for  the  nations,  and 
shall  assemble  the  outcasts  Of  Israel  and 
gather  together  the  dispersed  of  Judah  from, 
the  four  corners  of  the  earth." 

Turning  to  the  18th  of  Isaiah,  the  paral- 
lel text  with  this,  we  find  the  p'ace  of  the 
setting  up  of  the  ensign  and  a  further  con- 
firmation of  the  time  when  it  was  to  take 
place.    See  the  entire  chapter.    The  proph- 
et calls  attention  to  the  land    shadowing 
with  wings  as  the  place,  which  is  beyond 
the  rivers  of  Ethiopia — far  west  of  Jerusa- 
lem.   Verse  3.   calls  especial  attention   to 
the  ensign  to  be  lifted  up  and  the  sonnd 
that    shall  go   forth  as  ofa  trumpet;  the 
thought  in   this  is  that  a  call  is  to  be  made 
upon  the  people  by    the   God    of  heaven. 
Verse  5,  fixes  the  time  as  being  just  afore 
the  harvest  of  the  world;  the  same  time  in 
which  the  event  is  placed  by  Jesus  as  set 
forth  in  Matthew  13:39,   and  in  the  same 
time    referred  to    by  John   the    revelator, 
14:  6,  where  he  says:     "And  I  saw  another 
'angel  fly  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  having 
'the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  to  them 
'that  dwell  on  the  earth,  and  to  every  na- 
'tion,  and  kindred,  and  tongue  and  people, 
'saying  with  a  loud  voice,  Fear  God,  and 
'give  glory  to  Him;  for  the  hour  of  his  judg- 
'ment  is  come:  and  worship  him  that  made 
'heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  the 
'fountains  of  the  waters." 

This  again,  brings  the  gospel  by  an  angel 
to  the  earth  after  the  apostle's  time  and 
just  at  the  time  before  the  harvest,  when 
the  judgments  should  go  forth,  and  with 
a  call  to  the  people  like  to  the  blowing  of  a 
trumpet.  "Hear  ye!  "and,  "worship  Him 
who  made  the  heaven  and  the  earth;"  and 
this  call  is,  and  since  1830  has  been  made, 
whether  my  opponent  would,  confine  all 
angels,  and  gospel  that  came  in  power  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  to  the  apostles'  age  or  not. 
Turning  now  to  the  29th  chapter  of  Isaiah, 
I  find  clearly  and  definitely  set  out  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  ensign  that  was 
to  be  lifted  up.  The  gifted  prophet  beholds 
it  in  the  form  ofa  book  containing  the  "ev- 
erlasting gospel;"  the  same  which  Jesus 
preached;  a  gospel  of  power  and  salvation 
from  sin;  the  same  as  the  revelator  saw. 
This  chapter  is  clearly  definitive  also  of 
what  is  termed  "The  stick  of  Joseph,"  re- 
ferred to  in  the  37th  of  Ezekiel's  proph- 
ecy. I  wil  proceed  and  examine  it  partic- 
ularly. 

The  first  six  verses  of  the  chapter  In 
Isaiah  portray  the  degradation,  distress 
and  punishment  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  ruin 
of  their  city;  after  which,  "all  nations," 
that  have  occasioned  this  distress  and  ruin, 
are  represented  in  the  condition  of  one  in  a 
dream;  verses  7-11. 

These  nations  are  under  the  influence  of 
the  spirit  of  deep  sleep;  they  are  slumber- 


ing as  to  hearing  the  voice  of  God,  with 
eyes  closed,  without  prophets  or  seers. 
Then  verse  II,  "The  vision  of  all  is  become 
unto  you  as  the  words  of  a  book  that  is  seal- 
ed." (A  book  descriptive  of  a  people  Miafc 
had  wandered  from  God,  so  that  they  had 
wrought  evil  and  felt  not  after  him  aright, 
and  for  their  iniquities  had  been  over- 
thrown.) "Which  (words)  men  deliver  to 
"one that  is  learned,  saying,  read  this  I 
"  pray  thee:  and  he  saith  I  cannot;  for  it  is 
"sealed."  "And  the  book  (not  the  words 
"only),  is  delivered  to  him  that  is  not 
"  learned,  saying,  Read  this  I  pray  thee  : 
"  And  he  saith,  I  am  not  learned.  " 

Then  the  Lord  says,  that  he  will  pro- 
ceed to  do  his  own  work,  "Even  a  marvel- 
ous work  and  a  wonder,"  (Not  by  the 
wisdom  of  the  world;  for  no  learned  man 
after  the  wisdom  of  the  world  was  to  be  able 
to  do  his  work);  "for  the  wisdom  of  their 
wise  men  ahall  perish,  and  theunderstand- 
ing  of  their  prudent  men  shall  be  hid." 
Then  the  book,  the  work  referred  to  else- 
where as  the  "ensign,"  is  to  be  translated 
and  read  by  the  means  God  has  prepared. 
He  will  do  His  own  work. 

This  work  is  to  be  wrought  among  the 
people  at  the  time  He  sets  His  hand  to  re- 
deem Jacob  and  establish  Israel.  To  brinor 
peace  to  those  trodden  down  and  scattered 
upon  every  mountain.  It  was  not  the  work 
of  Jesus  in  his  time;  for  then  was  the  be- 
ginning of  the  scattering,  so  far  as  Judah 
was  concerned,  or  rather  the  beginning  of 
the  completion  of  the  scattering  of  Israel. 

Lebanon,  the  country  of  Jerusalem, 
then  began  to  dry  up  and  become  barren, 
but  this  work  is  to  be  done  at  the  time  Leb- 
anon was  to  be  redeemed  from  the  barren- 
ness, and  to  become  "a  fruitful  field,  and 
the  fruitful  field  esteemed  as  a  forest." 
All  of  the  things  referred  to  here,  every  es- 
sential feature,  of  people,  of  time,  of  place, 
of  the  day  in  which  the  book  should  come 
forth,  of  the  words  which  the  book  should 
contain,  of  the  power  of  God  to  be  mani- 
fested in  the  reading  of  the  book,  and  the 
bringing  to  nought  the  wisdom  of  the  wise 
(after  the  world  and  not  after  God);  is 
fulfilled  in  the  coming  forth  and  publish- 
ing to  the  world  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Don't  forget  that  I  take  a  positive  and 
confident  stand  with  regard  to  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  prophecy.  And  yet,  my  wise 
opponent  stands,  darkening  counsel  with 
words  without  knowledge,  never  even  at- 
temptiug  to  give  you  an  adverse  explana- 
tion and  application  of  the  prophecy,  such 
that  he  is  willing  to  sf.and  by,  saying, 
"Where  does  it  say  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  meant?" 

Where  does  it  say  in  Genesis  that  the 
Shiloh  is  Christ?  Yet  we  can  see  the  rela- 
tion of  the  prophecy  Again: 

"He  was  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter 
and  as  a  sheep  dumb  before  his  shearers, 
so  he  opened  not  his  mouth."  How  did 
Philip  find  out  this  was  Christ?  Is  the 
name  mentioned?  Does  it  say  "Jesus  of 
Na/areth"  is  he  who  is  mentioned?  Not 
at  all. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


29 


What  are  the  rules  of  evidence  which 
should  govern  in  this  controversy?  I  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  same  rule 
which  has  governed  in  the  reception  or  re- 
jection of  divine  messages  in  every  age  or 
time  of  trying  things  or  men,  claiming  a  di- 
vine origin,  or  call  from  heaven,  must  be 
the  governing  rule  in  this  case  of  the  trial 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  being  of  Divine  ori- 
gin. 

This  rule  I  have  sought  to  abide,  saying; 
if  you  believe  in  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
you  will  believe  in  this  also;  for  they  wrote 
of  this.  And  again,  "To  believe  for  the 
very  work's  sake."  What  works?  The 
gospel  that  is  preached,  and  the  everlast- 
ing gospel  that  it  contains. 

From  that  sure  rule  of  examination,  "  He 
that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he 
hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son."  2  John, 
9th  verse.  The  reason  is  evident  and  all  suffi- 
cient ;  by  Jesus'  words,  not  miracles,  not 
what  is  said  about  character,  not  the  stories 
told  on  people,  are  we  to  be  judged  at  the 
last  day  ;  and  if  we  have  stood  by  the  word 
we  will  be  right  there  and  then;  and  wheth- 
er it  come  from  the  high  or  low,  rich  or 
poor,  from  the  mean  city  of  Nazareth  or  the 
city  of  the  kings;  whether  he  "who  brings 
it  is  abstemious  neither  eating  nor  drinking, 
or  whether  he  shall  both  eat  bread  and 
drink  wine,  it  matters  not ;  the  lesson  is 
taught  us  that  we  must  not  expect  perfec- 
tion in  men,  because  God  speaks  to  them; 
but  perfection  in  the  work  so  far  as  it  comes 
from  the  hand  of  the  Creator.  God  to  my 
mind  selects  the  best  fitted  persons  he  can 
find  to  do  his  work  here,  and  no  doubt  he 
woald, — save  in  the  instance  of  Jesus  only, 
— have  preferred  a  more  appropriate  man 
than  he  found  for  the  conduct  of  his  work 
in  every  age  in  the  past :  but  he  works  by 
unchangeable  laws.  Rules  of  discipline 
and  development.  He  fits  and  prepares 
men  by  tsuch  laws,  only  in  proportion  as 
they  will  conform  to  the  same,  and  hence 
in  his  selections,  makes  choice  from  the 
material  he  has,  and  thus  through  the 
established  means  been  able  to  prepare. 
Ami  it  is  not  for  me  to  say  he  is  not  true, 
and  that  the  lavf  ordained  for  this  prepara- 
tion is  not  the  best  possible  order.  It  was 
by  this  just  rule  ihat  the  compilers  of  the 
New  Testament  di-i  their  work.  They  had 
a  mass  of  books  claiming  to  be  of  divine 
origin.  Some  were  acknowledged  to  be 
such.  They  tried  the  others  by  these.  The 
correspondence  in  teaching,  character  of 
works,  &c., — receiving  some  and  throwing 
out  others.  Do  you  der^y  it  sir?  So  far  as 
tracing  the  writings  back  to  the  original, 
cr  first  writers,  they  couid  not  do  it  in  any 
instance  positively.  The  rule  followed  by 
them,  however,  was  a  good  one,  and  the 
same  is  true  now,  and  I  am  willing  to 
abide  it. 

But  to  return  to  the  direct  line  of  argu- 
ment !  I  have  now  further  located  the  land 
to  which  the  descendants  of  Joseph  were  to 
come,  as  lying  over  the  sea  from  Canaan, 
west  of  that  country  beyond  the  rivers  of 
Ethiopia,  far  away  to  the  utmost  bounds  of 


the  everlasting  hills  ;  to  a  "  land  shad*  wing 
with,"  ( lying  widely  stretched  out  in  the 
form  of)  "wings;"  located  as  these  pro- 
phecies claim,  with  a  record  containing  the 
"  everlasting  gospel  ;  "  revealed  as  predict- 
ed, by  an  angel  from  the  courts  of  heaven, 
and  "just  afore  the  harvest,"  in  the  hour 
of  the  judgment. 

This  land  is  the  continent  upon  which 
you  and  I  live.  Do  not  these  proofs  make 
my  claim  from  the  Bible  stand  point  com- 
plete? Which  link  has  he  succeeded  in 
breaking?  One  thing,  however,  I  shall 
Show  in  this  connection,  that  is,' the  fact  of 
a  race  of  people  of  Israelitish  origin  or  ex- 
traction, having  come  to  this  continent  in 
ages  past,  and  who  well  occupied  and  in- 
habited here,  from  the  certain  proofs  obtain- 
ed through  archaeological  research  and  dis- 
covery brought  to  light  since  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Mormon  to  the  world. 

Not  only  this,  but  prior  to  their  habita- 
tion, there  had  been  upon  and  inhabited 
the  continent  another  people  and  race 
which  was  not  of  the  Jewish  extraction, 
but  highly  civilized,  and  whose  work  of 
art  in  the  ruins  of  the  continent  is  readily 
distinguishable,  from  that  of  the  people 
who  succeeded  them.  These  answer  to. 
and  are  in  fact  the  complete  prototype  and 
primeval  race  whose  history  is  set  out  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon  as  the  Jaredites,  who 
came  here  as  they  were  led  from  the  plain 
of  Shinar.  But  just  now  I  will  take  up  and 
examine  some  objections,  pretended  or  real, 
made  by  the  negath  e. 

1.  He  says,  That  in  the  New  Testament 
God  perfected  and  completed  his  work  of 
revelation  in  a  system  of  universal  truths, 
&c. 

To  the  unthinking  listener  there  may  ap- 
pear a  degree  of  force  in  this  proposition. 
But  is  there  in  fact?  In  the  first  place 
the  statement  is  at  fault  in  that,  it  as- 
sumes the  truth  of  a  thing  he  is  trying  to 
prove,  to  wit: — That  in  the  New  Testament 
is  contained  all  that  God  has  ever  revealed 
to  the  world.  For  neither  of  us  will  deny 
that  whatever  he  has  revealed  is  perfect. 

In  what  way  is  it  perfected  and  complet- 
ed? As  my  opponent  would  have  you  be- 
lieve, so  that  God  could  not,  and  would  not. 
outside  of  this,  reveal  HIMSKLK  to  any  part 
of  mankind?  Certainly  not.  No  one  can, 
maintain  the  proposition  that  in  the  New 
Testament  is  contained  all  tha  tour  Heav- 
enly Father  has  revealed  for  the  instruction 
of  man,  or  that  he  desires  that  they  should 
know  concerning  him.  The  New  Testament 
is  but  a  compilation  of  many  of  the  things 
revealed  for  the  good  of  the  human  family, 
and  not  all.  St.  Luke  in  the  first  four 
verses  of  his  record,  sets  forth  the  true  idea 
of  the  record  of  the  gospel.  Then  he  pro- 
ceeds to  give  his  account  of  the  things  said 
and  done  by  Jesus.  The  account  is  true, 
and  in  a  sense  complete  in  itself,  and  the 
truths  are  universally  applicable  to  the 
race;  but  would  that  justify  me  in  asserting 
that  this  book  of  Luke's  writing,  or  this  in 
connection  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, which  he  wrote,  contains  all  the  re- 


30 


THE  BKADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


vealed  will  of  God,  and  all  necessary 
truth?  Such  a  conclusion  would  be  most 
ridiculous  and  absurd.  But  not  more  so 
than  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  my  oppo- 
nent, that  the  New  Testament  compilers, 
who  were  not  inspired  men,  succeeded  a  few 
centuries  after  the  evangelist  Luke  wrote,  in 
bundling  up  all  truth,  which  God  had 
or  would  reveal  in  order  to  guide  his  chil- 
dren. 

While  man  is  not  expected  to  outgrow  the 
universal  and  eternal  principles  of  the  gos- 
pel that  w-ere  delivered  by  Jesus  himself, 
yet  in  the  dissemination  and  acceptance  of 
these  principles  in  their  true  sense  there  ia 
as  necessarily  instruction  to  be  given  by 
-revelation  in  this  age  of  the  world,  as  there 
was  after  the  personal  ministry  of  Jesus 
had  ceas.sd  and  his  instructions  given,  and 
when  Peter,  Paul  and  John  did  their  work. 

While  we  are  quite  ready  to  allow  that 
truths  which  God  has  given  for  the  good  of 
universal  man  are  universally  applicable, 
and  these  in  a  sense  perfect  and  complete, 


it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  man  should 
be  limited  to  the  simple  reading  of  these, 
neither  that  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary 
that  the  act  of  revelation  itself  be  contin- 
ued in  order  that  these  very  universal 
truths  may  be  properly  carried  out  in  one's 
life. 

This  continuance  of  revelation  is  in  fact  a 
part  of  the  revealment,  and  essential  to 
growth  in  that  already  given ;  hence  the 
apostle  declares  :  "  Wherefore  I  also  after 
I  heard  of  your  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus" 
"  after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of  truth,  the 
gospel  of  your  salvation "  (that  already 
revealed)j  "Cease  not  to  give  thanks  for 
you,  making  mention  of  you  in  my  prayers, 
that  the  Father  of  glory  may  give  unto  you 
the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in 'the 
knowledge  of  him."  My  position  is,  that 
the  negative,  in  his  method  of  jumping  at 
such  a  conclusion  of  no  more  reveintion 
assails  that  which  he  professes  at  the  aame 
time  to  accept. 

(Time  called.) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


31 


MR.  BRADEN'S  THIRD    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :  A  man  who  was  engaged  in 
an  altercation  with  a  trifling  character  that 
was  annoying  him  was  asked  why  he  did 
not  kick  him.  "I  will,"  replied  he,  "if 
some  one  will  fold  him  up  into  about  a 
dozen  thicknesses  so  that  there  will  be 
something  to  kick."  I  have  waited  till  now, 
befc  :e  answering  my  opponent,  so  that  I 
could  double  his  talk  up  into  at  least  a 
dozen  thicknesses  So  as  to  have  some- 
thing to  review.  My  opponent  can  prove 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  of  divine 
origin  in  two  ways :  I..  He  can  prove  its 
divine  origin,  as  we  establish  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Bible.  We  appeal  to  the  fact 
that  the  best  living  intellects  accept  the 
Bible  as  of  divine  origin ;  that  the  best 
intellects  of  former  generations  accepted 
the  Bible,  as  of  divine  origin,  until  we  IW.Q 
it  back  into  the  age  in  which  it- had  it*  ori- 
gin, and  we  show  that  th«  .jest  intellects, 
and  characters  of  the  people  among  whom 
it  had  its  origin  accepted  it  *»  »f  Ii"ine 
origin.  We  trace  i&ach  book  of  the  Bible 
back  in  this  way  into  the  age,  and  unto 
people  among  whom  it  had  its  origin.  We 
can  begin  with  the  oldest  books  and 
trace  out  the  frame-work  of  corroborative 
history,  geography,  literature,  customs, 
etc.,  in  which  it  had  its  origin,  and- into 
which  it  dovetails  and  interlocks  at  every 
point,  fitting  such  frame-work,  as  the  holes 
in  the  fuller's  web  fit  on  to  the  tenter-hooks 
on  which  it  has  been  stretched.  We 
prove  that  its  actors  authors  and  writers 
and  speakers,  acted  spoke  and  wrote  as  the 
Bible  declares  they  did.  Having  estab- 
lished its  authenticity,  genuineness  and 
truthfulness,  we  prove  that  its  speakers, 
actors  and  writers,  were  inspired  when  the 
Bible  declares  they  were  inspired,  for  we 
have  proved  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible. 
1 1.  We  then  examine  its  contents  and  prove 
by  prophecy  that  has  been  fulfilled — by 
i) iin»cles  that  are  authenticated  by  monu- 
mental institutions — by  truths  that  are 
above  man's  power  and  must  have  been 
revealed  and  by  its  exact  accordance  in  its 
teachings  and  in  its  results  with  the  claim 
of  inspiration  that  it  is  inspired  and  of 
divine  origin. 

My  opponent  cannot  appeal  to  one  parti- 
cle of  the  first  line  of  proof.  He  can  trace 
his  book  no  farther  back  than  to  Iniposter 
Joe  Smith.  It  has  not  one  particle  of  frame 
work  of  corroborating  history,  geography 
literature  and  customs  into  which  it  inter- 
locks. It  stands  on  the  naked  assumption 
that  Imposter  Joe  was  inspired  and  on  that 
alone.  If  he  was  inspired,  then  we  should 
believe  that  he  translated  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon by  inspiration,  and  of  course  it  is  true, 
and  of  divine  origin.  The  Book  itself  has 
not  one  iota  of  interlocking  corroborating, 


or  collateral  evidence.  It  steps  out  into 
human  life  from  the  hand  of  Imposter  Joe 
as  the  Goddess  Minerva  burst  from  the 
head  of  Jupiter.  He  claims  that  he  re- 
ceived it  from  an  angel  by  miracle  and  that 
he  translated  it  by  inspiration.  Therefore 
it  is  of  divine  origin  and  mankind  should 
accept  it.  There  are  no  monumental  insti- 
tutions no  literature  based  on  it.  It  has 
had  no  career  in  the  life  of  our  race  of  which 
we  have  one  particle  of  knowledge  or  proof 
except  the  assertions  of  the  book  itself.  If 
my  opponent  appeals  to  the  Bible,  as  Jesus 
appealed  to  the  Old  Testament,  he  must 
show  that  the  Bible,  in  its  history,  narrates 
the  same  events  as  are  found  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  It  does  not  hint  one  of  them, 
except  what  the  book  of  Mormon  steals 
from  the  Bible.  Or  that  the  Bible  foretells 
the  events  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
He  has  attempted  this,  and  oh  how  weak 
an  attempt..  I  can  prove  that  the  Bible 
foretells  the  Koran  or  Swedenborg's  writ- 
ings just  as  clearly.  The  false  prophets 
and  false  Messiahs  of  Israel  furnished  far 
mor««  proof  from  prophecy  than  he  has  pro- 
duced. Even  if  the  Bible  foretold  the 
events  nanated  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
that  would  not  prove  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  of  divine  origin.  The  Bible  foretells 
events  narrated  in  Assyrian  and  Egyptian 
history.  That  does  not  prove  that  the 
books  recording  what  the  Bible  foretells 
are  of  divine  origin.  Do  the  prophecies  he 
quotes,  even  if  we  admit  his  fanciful  appli- 
cation, prove  that  the  Book  *»f  Mormon  ia 
of  divine  origin,  one  -particle  more  than 
prophecies  in  the  Bible  of  events  recorded 
in  Egyptian  history,  proves  that  the  Egyp- 
tian books  were  of  divine  origin?  Where 
does  the  Bible  prophesy  in  such  a  way  as 
to  prove  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  of 
divine  origin. 

The  only  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  is  the  pretended  inspi- 
ration of  Imposter  Joe  Smith.  If  im- 
poster  Joe  was  inspired,  then  of  course 
he  translated  the  Book  of  Mormon  by  in- 
spiration, as  he  claimed,  and  we  can  believe 
his  story  that  he  received  it  from  an  angel 
by  miracle,  and  that  the  angel  told  him 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  what  it  pre- 
tends to  be,  and  true.  If  he  was  not  in- 
spired, we  have  not  a  shadow  of  proof  of 
the  divine  origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
My  opponent  can  establish  that  Imposter 
Joe  was  inspired  by  proving  that  he 
wrought  miracles,  as  nearly  all  of  the  in- 
spired men  of  the  Bible  did ;  or  that  he 
foretold  future  events,  as  Noah,  John  the 
Baptist  and  others  did,  who  wrought  no 
signs,  or  that  he  had  superhuman  wisdom, 
and  revealed  what  man  could  not  know  IMS 
the  inspired  men  of  the  Bible  did,  or  that 
his  character  was  such  that  he  would  not 


82 


THE  BRADEN  AND  K-ELLEY  DEBATE. 


claim  to  be  inspired,  if  it  were  not  so,  as  we 
show  in  the  case  of  Christ.  If  he  appeals 
to  the  Bible  as  Jesus  and  the  apostles  ap- 
pealed to  the  Bible,  let  him  produce  from 
the  Bible  the  proof  they  did.  Let  him 
prove  that  the  Bible  prophesies  directly 
and  clearly  of  Imposter  Joe,  his  work  and 
his  book.  Let  him  show  that  the  work  of 
Imposter  Joe  and  the  Book  of  Mormon  are 
a  clear  fulfillment  of  Bible  prophecies. 
The  appeals  to  prophecy,  made  by  Christ 
and  his  apostleSj  were  clear  direct  positive 
and  overwhelming.  They  were  not  such 
far  fetched  fanciful  distortions  and  perver- 
sio^s  cf  the  Bible,  as  we  hear  from  Mor- 
monism.  He  seems  to  be  afraid  to  affirm 
and  defend  the  inspiration  of  Imposter  Joe. 
If  he  abandons  that,  he  abandons  the  sole 
basis  of  his  claim  for  his  book.  The  only 
basis  for  the  claim  for  the  divine  origin  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  is  two  assertions.  I. 
An  angel  revealed  to  Imposter  Joe  the  ex- 
istence of  certain  plates  and  gave  them  to 
him  and  told  him  that  the  contems  were 
true.  II.  That  Imposter  Joe  translated 
these  plates,  and  we  have  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  the  contents  of  the  plates.  Prove 
that  you  establish  the  divine  origin  of  the  • 
Book  of  Mormon.  Fail  in  that  and  you 
utterly  fail  to  establish  such  claim. 

My  opponent  attempted  to  prove  the  di- 
vine origin  of  his  book  by  appealing  to  these 
facts  :  I.  It  claims  to  come  from  the  right 
source.  So  does  the  Koran.  II.  It  claims 
to  be  a  proper  message  to  mankind.  So  do 
the  Shasters  of  India.  III.  Its  object  is 
good,  the  salvation  of  mankind.  The  same 
can  be  said  of  the  revelations  of  Anni  Lee. 
IV.  Its  teachings  are  good.  So  were  the 
sermons  of  Stephens  Burrows,  the  greatest 
scoundrel  that  eve/  lived.  He,  a  vile  ini- 
poster.  stole  and  uttered  the  teachings  of 
the  Bible.  So  did  Job  Smi  h  and  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  If  j.mpostto"  Joe  was  inspired, 
and  his  book  a  revelation  Burrows  was 
also  inspired  ana  his  sermons*  revelations, 
on  precisely  the  same  ground.  My  oppo- 
nent asserts  that  I  should  follow  him  in 
argument.  That  depends  on  where  and 
how  he  leads.  If  he  presents  the  issue 
clearly  and  fully,  and  any  proof  of  his  po- 
sition, I  will  follow  him.  If  he  does  not,  I 
will  present  the  issues  myself,  and  refute 
his  system,  whether  he  presents  it  or  not. 
I  am  surprised  that  one  who  claims  to  be  a 
lawyer,  as  does  my  opponent,  should  be 
ignorant  of  the  rules  of  debate,  that  the 
negative  is  free  to  pursue  two  courses.  I. 
Reply  to  the  attempted  arguments  of  the 
affirmative.  II.  Or  by  an  independent  line 
of  argument  prove  that  his  affirmative  is 
untrue.  If  he  pursues  the  latter  course,  he 
completely  overturns  the  affirmative's  po- 
sition, if  he  never  notices  one  of  his  pre- 
tended arguments. 

My  opponent's  feelings  seem  to  be  very 
badly  hurt  by  my  calling  Smith  an  im- 
postor, a  deceiver,  a  scoundrel.  If  I  prove 
that  he  pretended  to  be  inspired  and  was 
not,  that  his  book  was  a  fraud,  I  prove  him 
to  be  an  imposter,  a  scoundrel  of  the  black- 
est dye.  A  woman  once  declared,  "  I  don't 


like  Mr.  Brown.  He  called  my  husband  a 
liar.  And  that  was  not  the  worst  of  it. 
He  proved  it."  Mormons  will  have  the 
same  reasons  to  dislike  Mr.  Braden.  I  have 
called  Joe  Smith  an  imposter,  a  scoundrel 
and  I  will  prove  it.  My  opponent  reminds 
me  that  the  Jews  called  Jesus  a  drunkard, 
a  glutton,  a  lover  of  harlots  and  vile  per- 
sons. Will  he  answer  one  question  ?  If 
the  charges  of  the  Jews  had  been  true, 
would  it  not  have  proved  that  Jesus  was  an 
imposter?  That  he  was  neither  inspired 
nor  divine.  If  I  prove  that  Joe  Smith  was  a 
vile  character,  will  it  not  prove  that  he  was 
not  inspired  ?  Now  answer  if  you  dare. 
The  fallacy  of  the  Jews,  was  not  in  using 
the  wrong  argument,  but  in  making  a  false 
accusation.  Jesus  admitted  that  if  their 
charges  had  been  true,  it  would  utterly  de- 
stroy his  claim  to  be  sent  of  God  and  divine, 
when  he  challenged  them  "Who  of  you 
have  convicted  me  of  any  wickedness?" 
In  that  question,  Jesus  flatly  contradicts 
the  nonsense  my  opponent  uttered  last 
night.  He  appeals  to  the  errors  and  sins 
of  men  that  the  bible  says  were  inspired. 
When  he  proves  that  they  were  ever  in- 
spired while  living  in  such  sin,  while 
committing  or  practising  it,  we  will  notice 
his  argument.  What  portion  of  the  Biblo 
was  uttered  or  written  by  a  man,  while 
committing  these  vile  sins  ?  What  inspired 
act  or  utterance  of  David,  Solomon,  Moses 
or  Paul,  have  we  that  was  acted  or  uttered 
while  they  were  committing  vile  sins? 

He  admits  that  he  who  transgresses  the 
teachings  of  Christ  is  not  of  God.  That  ad- 
mission overturns  all  his  special  pleadings, 
in  appealing  to  the  sins  of  Bible  characters. 
While  in  transgressions,  they  were  not  of 
God,  not  inspired,  nor  were  their  acts  or 
utterances  revelations.  Then  comes  the 
one  everlasting  text  of  Mormonism  "He 
that  hath  the  teaching  of  the  Christ  hath 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son."  He  assum- 
es that  if  they  have  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  they  are  of  God.  True  but  that  does 
not  prove  that  they  are  inspired,  nor  that 
what  they  say  or  write  is  a  revelation. 
Even  if  Joe  Smith  had  been  a  good  man,  it 
would  not  prove  that  he  was  inspired,  or 
that  his  book  was  a  revelation,  any  more 
than  the  fact  that  Wesley  was  a  good  man, 
proves  that  he  was  inspired,  and  his  ser- 
mons revelations.  "But  Joseph  Smith 
claimed  to  be  inspired.  If  a  good  man 
makes  such  a  claim  it  must  be  true."  No, 
a  good  man  may  be  deceived.  Hundreds 
of  good  men  have  been  deceived  in  believing 
that  they  were  inspired  and  that  the  stuif 
they  uttered  were  revelations. 

The  gross  absurdity  of  the  use  that  Mor- 
mons make  of  that  passage  will  be  seen 
if  my  opponent  will  answer  question.  How 
must  a  man  have  the  teaching  of  Christ  in 
order  to  have  the  Father  and  the  Son?  In 
mere  preaching  alone?  Or  in  living  them 
out  in  life?  When  the  scoundrel  Burrows 
had  the  doctrine  of  Christ  in  his  sermons, 
did  he  have  the  Father  and  the  Son? 
Would  not  the  fact  that  he  was  a  hypocrite, 
an  imposter  and  a  scoundrel,  prove  thai-  ue 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


did  not  have  the  Father  and  the  Son,  no 
matter  what  he  preached?  Does  the  fact 
tnat  Joe  Smith  stole  and  put  the  teachings 
of  the  Bible  into  the  Book  of  Mormon,  prove 
that  he  had  the  Father  and  the  Son,  that 
he  was  a  good  man,  that  he  was  inspired, 
that  his  book  was  a  revelation?  When  the 
devil  quoted  the  words  of  God  to  our  Savi- 
our, .did  it  prove  that  he  had  the  Father  and 
the  Son?  That  he  was  inspired  and  that 
his  utterances  were  revelation  ?  Even  if 
the  moral  and  religious  sentiments  of  the 
Rook  of  Mormon,  that  are  stolen  from  the 
Bible,  are  good,  'it  does  not  prove  that  its 
statements  "of  pretended  facts  are  true,  and 
much  less  does  it  prove  that  the  book  is  a 
revelation,  that  Joe  Smith  was  inspired,  or 
even  a  good  man.  Language  can  hardly  ex- 
press the  idiocy  of  this  pet  argument  of 
Mormoni««m.  It  would  prove  that  when 
the  devil  transforms  himself  into  an  angel 
of  light,  and  utters,  hypocritically  and  to 
deceive,  good  sentiments,  he  is  good,  in- 
spired, and  his  utterances  revelations,  just 
as  clearly  as  it  proves  that  Jmposter  Joe 
had  the  F'ather  and  the  Son,  was  a  good 
man,  inspired  and  his  book  a  revelation, 
oecause  he  stole  good  teaching  from  the 
Bible,  and  hypocritically  gave  it  to  the 
worla,  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  lying  and 
claiming  that  his  fraud  was  a  revelation. 

The  quotation  from  Acts  17,  no  more 
proves  or  hints  the  divine  origin  of  the  book 
of  Mormon  than  a  repetition  of  the  multi- 
plication table.  Neither  does  the  quotation 
from  Acts  10.  The  quotation  from  John 
10;  14-16.  teaches  the  opposite  to  what  he 
claims  it  teaches.  In  Gen.  17, 15,  we  read: 
"  The  uncircumcised  person  shall  be  cut  off 
from  my  people.  He  has  broken  my  coven- 
ant." Circumcision  was  the  mark  of  the 
flock.  If  the  Nephites  were  circumcised, 
they  were  of  the  same  flock  as  those  Jesus 
was  addressing.  If  they  were  not  circum- 
cised, they  had  ceased  to  be  Israelites,  and 
not  a  prophecy  that  my  opponent  quotes 
can  have  any  reference  to  them.  Neither 
the  Bible,  nor  the  Israelites,  nor  Jesus  ever 
speak  of  Israelites  outside  of  Palestine,  as 
belonging  to  a  fold  separate  and  different 
from  those  in  Palestine.  If  the  Nephites  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  were  circumcised  Is- 
raelites, they  were  as  much  members  of  the 
fold  Jesus  was  addressing,  as  the  Israelites 
in  Egypt  or  Palestine.  The  sheep  that 
werf  not  of  that  fold  of  which  Jesus  was 
speaking,  were  not  circumcised  Israelites 
in  Egypt  or  America  or  any  other  place,  for 
all  circumcised  Israelites  were  one  fold. 
The  other  sheep  that  were  not  of  that  fold, 
that  was  made  up  entirely  of  circumcised 
Israelites,  were  Gentiles.  The  language 
has  reference  to  the  breaking  down  of  a 
wall  of  partition  between  Jew  and  Gentile, 
and  making  Jews  and  Gentiles  one  fold  in 
Christ. 

The  quotation  from  Ezekiel  84,  "  My 
sheep  were  scattered  upon  all  the  face  of 
the  earth"  proves  nothing  for  in  such 
phraseology,  often  the  Bible  means  no 
more  than  that  they  were  widely  scattered, 
and  it  never  refers  to  more  than  the  old 


continent  which  was  all  that  the  Israelites 
knew  anything  about.  The  quotation  from 
the  highly  poetical  figurative  language  of 
Jacob's  blessing  on  Joseph,  with  its  bold 
hyperbole,  proves  nothing.  The  Mormon 
interpretation  is  an  unnatural  one,  foreign 
to  the  subject,  and  forced  on  to  the  language 
to  sustain  a  theory.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  language  that  was  not  fulfilled  in  Pa- 
lestine, as  much  as  the  hyperbole  of  many 
other  prophetic  promises,  that  all  admit 
did  not  extend  beyond  the  land  of  Palestine. 
Even  if  it  did  extend  beyond  the  land  of 
Palestine,  it  need  include  no  more  than 
the  old  continent.  It  need  not  extend  be- 
yond the  Josephites  in  Europe,  Asia  and 
Africa.  My  opponent  reverses  the  order  of 
the  line  of  argument.  He  must  prove  that 
the  Josephites  migrated  beyond  the  old 
world,  to  America,  before  he  can  extend  the 
language  of  the  prophecy  to  America.  Ho 
absurdly  assumes  that  the  language  must 
extend  beyond  the  old  world  to  America, 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  Josephites 
came  to  America. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  MORMON. 

I  propose  now  to  refute  the  claim  made 
by  my  opponent  that  the  Book  of  Mormon 
is  of  divine  origin,  by  proving  that  it 
had  a  very  base  human  origin,  about  sev- 
enty year's  ago.  If  I  can  show  that  it  was 
gotten  up  by  three  men,  in  the  first  half  of 
the  present  century,  through  base  motives, 
and  for  purpose  of  fraud,  and  gain  by  fraud 
and  deception,  I  utterly  explode  all  claim 
to  divine  origin.  I  propose  now  to  trace 
out  such  origin,  for  the  Book  of  Mormon,  as 
clearly  as  a  chain  of  title  to  a  piece  of  land. 
Let  us  first  state  what  the  Book  of  Mormon 
professes  to  be.  It  purports  to  be  a  history 
of  America  from  the  time  its  first  inhabi- 
tants entered  it,  just  after  the  confusion  of 
tongues  at  the  tower  of  Babel,  till  about  A . 
D.  400,  a  period  probably  of  nearly  4000 
years.  It  assert?  that  this  continent  was 
peopled  by  thi-ee  different  families.  1. 
The  family  of  J 9  red,  who  emigrated  from 
the  Tower  of  Babel,  over  3000  years  before 
the  birth  of  Christ,  and  whose 'descendants 
were  exterminated,  one  portion  of  the  book 
declares  about;  600  years  before  Christ; 
another  portion  of  the  book  declares  about 
250  years  before  Christ.  11.  The  family 
of  Lehi,  a  Manassehite,who  emigrated 
from  Jerusalem,  600  years  before  Christ, 
early  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  king 
of  Judah.  His  descendents  divided  in- 
to two  nations,  the  Nephites,  the  righ- 
teous portion ;  and  the  Lamanites,  the 
wicked  portion  ;  III.  The  people  of  Zar- 
ahemla,  Judahites  who  left  Jerusalem 
about  eleven  years  after  Lehl.  The  de- 
scendants of  these  Judahites  were  de- 
stroyed in  war  or  absorbed  by  the  Neph- 
ites. In  war,  the  Nephites  were  extermi- 
nated by  the  Lamanites,  about  A.  D.  384. 
The  Lamanites  remained  sole  possessors  of 
of  the  continent,  and  are  the  American  In- 
dians. J  wish  the  reader  to  notice  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  Book  of  Mormon,  not  an 
Ephraimite,  ever  came  to  America.  How 
then  can  the  prophecies  in  regard  to  Ephra- 


34 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEB  A  TE. 


1m  apply  to  the  aboriginies  of  America, 
even  if  the  history  in  the  Book  of  Mormon 
be  true?  According1  to  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon the  deeds  of  this  people  were,  by  di- 
vine direction,  engraved  l>y  their  prophets, 
on  plates  of  gold,  brass,  and  ore  (what  ev- 
er that  nondescript  substance  may  mean). 
These  plates  were  religiously  preserved  by 
divine  direction.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
tells  us,  on  almost  every  page,  with  painful 
iteration  and  reiteration,  of  plates,  of  how 
they  were  prepared,  preserved  and  revised, 
handed  down  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion— how  careful  the  Lord  was  to  see  that 
this  was  done,  until  they  fell  into  the  hands 
of  one  Mormon,  who  about  A.  D.  384  made 
an  abridgement  and  buried  the  originals, 
together  with  certain  relics,  in  a  hill  which 
is  now  near  Manchester  Ontario  Co.,  New 
York.  He  handed  this  abridgment  "these 
few  plates"  to  his  son  Moroni,  providently 
leaving  a  few  pages  for  him  to  use  in  finish- 
ing the  abridgement.  Moroni  finishes,  by  en- 
graving on  the  few  pages  left  by  his  father, 
what  happened  after  his  father  revised  his 
record.  Then  he  writes,  and  on  nothing,  for 
he  tells  us  that  his  plates  are  full,  and  he 
had  nothing  to  make  plates  of  and  is  alone, 
an  abridgment  of  the  history  of  the  Jarad- 
ites.  Moroni  then  boxes  up  these  few  plates 
containing  the  abridgment  made  by  his 
father,  and  his  appendix  to  it,  written  on 
the  few  pages  his  father  left  him  for  that 
purpose,  and  buries  them  in  a  hill,  Cumo- 
rah,  that  was  in  what  is  now  Manchester. 
N.  Y.  He  buried  only  "these  few  plates," 
and  nothing  with  them  for  Mormon  had  bur- 
ied everything  else  years  before,  in  an  in- 
tirely  different  locality. 

'ifThese  few  plates"  remained  in  this  box, 
till  September,  22,  1823,  when  Moroni,  then 
an  angel  appeared  to  Joe  Smith,  and  re- 
vealed to  him  the  existence  of  these  plates, 
their  place  of  burial,  and  a  summary  of 
their  contents.  September,  22,  1827,  Moro- 
ni delivered  the  plates  to  Joe  Smith,  who 
by  means  of  a  peep  st^ne  that  he  had  stolen 
from  the  children  of  Willard  Chase,  trans- 
lated them,  and  gave  their  contents  to  the 
world,  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  mentions  a  perfect 
museum  of  relics  that  are  "hid  up"  some- 
where near  Palmyra,  New  York.  We  give 
the  list  that  our  readers  may  see  how  care- 
ful the  Lord  was  to  have  the  records  and 
relics  preserved.  We  cite  the  pages  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  English  edition,  where 
they  are  mentioned.  It  shows  with  what 
iteration  and  reiteration  "plates"  are  men- 
tioned, and  how  much  pains  the  authors 
take  to  convince  the  sceptical,  that  these 
records  were  so  carefully  preserved,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  about  the  accuracy  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  I.  Plates  of  Laban. 
pp  9  — 11 — 144 —  145.  II. Brass  genealogical 
plates,  p  11.  III.  Brass  plates  of  Lehi, 
afterwards  abridged  by  Nephi,  pp  3 — 44 — 
62.  IV.  Brass  plates  of  Nephi  containing 
"the  more  part  of  the  history"  (shades  of 
Murray  what  English)  pp,  16— -138.  V. 
Brass  plates  of  Nephi  containing  "the  more 
part  of  the  ministry"  (shades  of  Addison, 


forgive  the  English  of  the  fullnes  of  Mor- 
mon inspiration)  pp,  16 — 144.  VI.  Ore 
(what  nondescript  substance  is  that?)  plates 
of  Nephi  "containing  mine  own  prophecies" 
p  44.  VII.  Plates  of  Zarahemla  containing 
genealogy,  p,  140.  VIII.  Plates  of  Mor- 
mon, containing  an  abridgment  of  Nephi's 
plates  that  contained  "the  more  part  of  the 
ministry,"  p,  141.  IX.  Plates  containing  a 
record  from  priest  Ja.^ob  to  king  Benjamin, 
p  141.  X.  Plates  containing;  record  ofZe- 
niff,  p  161.  XI.  Golden  plates  of  Ether, 
pp,  161,— 312— 516.  XII.  Plates  containing 
Alma's  account  of  "his  afflictions,"  p,  196. 
XIII.  Plates  Jared  "brought  across  the  great 
deep,"  p,  530..  XIV.  Copies  of  Scriptures 
"out  of  which  the  sons  of  Mosuah  studied 
14  years,"  pp,  255 — 271.  XV.  Many  records 
kept  by  people  "who  went  north-west,"  pp, 
394—395.  XVI.  Twelve  epistles  by  different 
prophets  on  different  themes.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  gives  us  only  an  abridgment  of 
these.  The  originals  are  "hid  up."  XVII. 
The  liahona — the  sacred  brass  globe  called 
the  brass  compass  or  brass  director-of  Lehi. 
pp,  38—314.  XVIII.  The  record  of  Laban, 
pp,  145  — 143  — 145.  XIX.  The  engraved 
stone  of  Coriantumer  p,  140.  XX.  The  six- 
teen stones  that  God  touched  with  his  fin- 
gers, p,  20.  XXI.  The  two  stone  interpre- 
ters of  Moroni,  pp,  162—204.  XXII.  The 
two  stone  interpreters  of  Jared's  brother, 
pp,  522-523.  XXIII.  A  white  stone  Gaxelme. 
p,  212.  XXIV.  A  brass  breastplate  found 
with  Ether's  plates,  p,  161,  Besides  all 
these  Smith  and  other  Mormons  describe- 
articles  different  from  these  enough  to  in- 
crease the  number  indefinitely.  Mor- 
mon tells  us  p  492,  -  that  he  hides  all 
of  these  relics,  and  hands  only  "these 
few  plates"  containing  his  abridgment  to 
his  son  Moroni.  They  are  "hid  up"  no  one 
knows  where.  The  reader  will  observe  we 
have  piles  of  plates,  a  score  of  them,  men- 
tioned scores  of  times.  No  one  dare  deny 
the  accuracy  of  records  kept  on  metalic 
plates,  imperishable  material,  with  such 
constant  care,  and  by  divine  direction,  aud 
inspiration. 

It  is  our  purpose  to  prove  that  the  Book 
of  Mormon  originated  with  Solomou 
Spaulding,  was  revamped  by  Sydney  Rig- 
don,  and  given  to  the  world  by  Impostor 
Joe  Smith.  We  shall  give  first  a  sketch  oi 
Spaulding,  and  his  work  until  he  came  in 
contact  with  Rigdon.  Then  a  sketch  of 
Rigdon  and  of  his  work,  until  he  confeder- 
ated with  Impostor  Joe,  to  give  his  stolen 
fabrication  to  the  world,  by  means  of  his 
stolen  peepstone.  Solomon  Spaulding  was 
born  in  Ashford  Conneticut  in  1761.  He 
graduated  at  Dartmouth  College  in  1785, 
with  the  degree  of  A.  B.  He  studi- 
ed theology  and  graduated  in  theology  in 
1787,  and  received  the  degree  of  A.  M.  He 
preached  until  after  1800.  On  account  .of 
failing  health  he  went  into  business  in 
Cherry  Valley,  New  York.  He  failed  in 
merchandizing  and  moved  to  Conneaut, 
Ohio,  in  1807  or  8.  Here  he  went  into  the 
foundery  business  and  failed  again.  There 
were  in  the  township  of  Conueaut  a  great 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


85 


many  mounds  and  other  relics  of  an  ex- 
tinct race  of  people.  Mr.  Spaulding  be- 
came very  much  interested  in  these  anti- 
quities. In  1809  he  began  a  romance,  in 
which  he  assumed  that  the  ancestors  of  the 
Indians  were  Romans.  After  writing 
forty  or  fifty  pages,  he  abandoned  this  idea, 
because  as  he  said,  the  Romans  were  too 
near  tne  time  in  which  he  was  writing. 
This  MS  was  the  only  one  Philastus  Hurl- 
but  said  he  found  in  the  trunk,  supposed 
to  contain  all  of  Spaulding's  MS'S,  when 
they  examined  the  trunk  at  Mr.  Clark's 
house,  In  1834.  This  MS  we  will  designate 
as  Roman  MS  or  MS  No  1. 

Ever  since  the  European  missionaries  be- 
gan to  labor  among  the  Indians,  as  early  as 
the  year  k»00,  Spanish,  French,  English 
and  Portugese  Missionaries  had  observed 
certain  things  among  the  Indians,  that  led 
some  of  th&ea  to  believe  that  the  Indians 
were  of  Israelite  origin,  descendants  of  the 
Ten  Lost  Tribes  of  Israel.  Such  ideas  can 
be  found  in  the  writings  of  Spanish  Port- 
ugese, and  French  Monks,  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Elliott,  Cotton  Mather  and  scores 
of  American  writers,  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  present  century.  Mr.  Spauld- 
ing was  a  firm  believer  and  earnest  advo- 
cate of  this  theory.  He  began  to  write  a 
romance,  in  which  he  assumed,  that  the 
aborigines  of  America,  and  the  authors  of 
its  mounds  and  other  antiquities  were  Is- 
raelites. He  commenced  writing  this  MS 
as  early  as  1809.  His  brother,  J.  Spauld- 
ing, certifies  that  he  visited  his  brother 
Solomon  in  1810,  and  found  him  writing  a 
book  which  he  called,  "The  Manuscript 
Found,"  which  he  intended  to  publish, 
and  hoped  by  the  sales  to  pay  his  debts. 
He  described  it  as  follows: 

'  It  was  a  historical  romance  of  the  first  settlers  of 
America,  and  endeavored  to  show  that  the  American 
Indians  are  the  descendants  of  the  Jews,  or  the  Ten 
Lost  Tribes.  It  gave  a  detailed  account  of  their  journ- 
ey from  Jerusalem,  by  land  and  sea,  until  they  arrived 
in  America,  under  the  command  of  Lehi  and  Nephi. 
They  afterwards  had  quarrels  and  contentions,  and 
separated  into  two  distinct  nations,  one  of  which  he 
denon,in>ited  Nephites,  the  other  Lamanites.  Cruel 
and  bloody  wars  ensued,  in, which  great  multitudes 
•were  slain.  They  buried  their  dead  in  large  heaps 
which  caused  the  mounds,  so  common  in  this  country. 
Their  arts,  sciences  and  civilization  were  all  brought 
into  view,  in  order  to  account  for  all  the  curious  antiqui- 
ties found  in  various  parts  of  Northern  and  Southern 
America  I  well  remember  that  he  wrote  in  the  old 
Btyle,  and  commenced  almost  every  sentence  with, 
"And  it  came  to  pass,"  or  "Now  it  came  to  pass." 

I  will  leave  it  to  the  reader,  if  the  aver- 
age Mormon  can  give  a  better  synopsis  of 
the  historical  part  of  the  Nephite  portion 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  then  John  Spauld- 
ing gives  in  describing  his  brother's  ro- 
mance the  "Manuscript  Found." 

Martha  Spaulding,  wife  of  John  Spauld- 
ing, and  sister-in-law  of  Solomon  Spauld- 
ing, testifies: 

"1  was  at  the  house  of  Solomon  Spaulding  shortly 
before  he  left  ConeHUt.  He  was  then  writing  a  his- 
torical novel  founded  on  the  first  settlers  of  America. 
He  represented  them  as  an  enlightened  and  warlike 
people.  He  had  for  many  years  contended  that  the  ab- 
origines of  America  were  the  descendants  of  some  of 
the  Lost  Tribi s  of  Israel;  and  this  idea  he  carried  out 
in  the  book  in  question.  The  mpse  of  time  which  has 
Intervened  prevents  my  recollecting  but  few  of  the 
leading  incidents  of  his  writings;  but  the  names  Lehi 


and  Nephi  are  yet  fresh  in  my  memory  as  being  the 
prin'-ipal  heroes  of  his  tale.  They  were  officers  of  the 
company  which  first  came  off  from  Jerusalem.  He 
gave  a  particular  account  of  their  journey  by  landand 
by  sea,  till  they  arrived  in  America,  after  which  dis- 
putes arose  between  the  chiefs,  which  caused  them  to 
separate  into  bands,  one  of  which  was  called  Laman- 
ites the  other  Nephites.  Between  these  there  were  re- 
counted tremendous  battles,  which  frequently  cover- 
ed the  ground  with  slain  and  these  being  buried  in 
large  heaps,  was  the  cause  of  the  many  mounds  in  the 
country.  Some  of  these  people  he  represents  as  be- 
ing very  large." 

Again,  I  ask  the  reader  if  an  average  Mor- 
mon could  give  a  better  outline  of  the  his- 
torical part  of  the  Nephite  portion  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  than  Mrs.  Spaulding 
gives  in  describing  the  "Manuscript 
Found"  of  her  brother-in-law  Solomon 
Spaulding. 

Henry  Lake,  Solomon  Spaulding's  busi- 
ness partner  testifies: 

Solomon  Spauldin  g  frequently  read  to  me  from  a  man- 
uscript which  he  was  writing,  which  he  entitled  the 
"Manuscript  Found,,"  and  which  he  represented  as- 
being  found  in  this  town.  I  spent  many  hours  in  hear- 
ing him  rea_d  said  writings,  and  became  well  acquaint- 
ed with  their  contents.  The  Book  represened  the  Amer- 
ican Indians  as  being  the  descendants  of  the  Lost 
Tribes  of  Israel,  and  gave  an  account  of  their  having 
left  Jerusalem,  and  of  theircontentions  and  wars,  which 
were  many  and  great.  I  remember  telling  Mr.  Spauld- 
ing that  so  frequent  use  of  the  words:  "And  it  came  to 
pass, '  '  Now  it  came  to  pass,"  rendered  the  book  ridic- 
ulous." 
Aaron  Wright  testifies: 

"One  day  when  I  was  at  the  house  of  Solomon 
Spaulding,  he  showed  and  road  to  me  a  history  he  was 
writing  ot  the  Lost  Tribes  of  Israel,  purporting  that 
they  were  the  first  settlers  of  America  and  thnt  the 
Indians  were  their  descendants.  He  traced  their  journ- 
ey from  Jerusalem  to  America.  He  told  me  his  object 
was  to  account  for  the  fortifications  etc.  that  were  to  be 
found  in  this  country,  and  said  that  in  time,  it  would 
•  be  fully  believed  by  all  except  learned  men  and 
historians  " 

Oliver  Smith  testifies: 

'•So^mon  Ppaulding  boarded  at  my  house  six 
months.  All  his  leisure  hours  were  occupied  in  writ- 
ing a  historical  novel,  founded  upon  the  first  settlers 
Of  this  country.  He  said  he  intended  to  trace  their 
Journey,  from  Jerusalem  by  land  and  sea  till  their  ar- 
rival in  America,  and  give  an  account  of  their  arts, 
sciences,  civilization  laws  and  contentions.  In  this 
way  he  would  give  a  satisfactory  account  of  all  of  the 
old  mounds,  so  common  in  this  country.  Nephi  and 
Lehi,  were  by  him,  represented  as  the  leading  charac- 
ters, when  they  first  darted  for  America.  Their  wain 
object  was  to  escape  the  judgements  which  they  sup- 
posed were  coming  on  the  old  world." 

Nahum  Howard  testifies: 

"In  conreisation  with  Solomon  Spauldfng  I  express- 
ed my  surprise  that  we  had  no  account  of  the  people 
once  in  this  country,  who  erected  the  old  forts  mounds 
etc.  He  told  me  he  was  writing  a  history  of  that  peo- 
ple." 

Artemus  Cunningham  testifies: 

"Solomon  Spaulding  described  to  me  his  book.  He 
said  that  it  was  a  fabulous  or  romantic  history  of  the 
first  inhabitants  of  this  country,  and  it  purported  ^o  be 
a  record  found  buried  in  the  earth,  or  in  a  cave.  He 
had  adopted  the  ancient  or  Scriptural  style  of  wriiing. 
He  then  read  from  his  manuscript  I  remember  the 
name  of  Nephi,  who  appeared  to  be  the  principal  hero 
of  the  story.  The  frequent  repetition  of  the  phrase 
"1  Nephi"  I  remember  distinctly  as  though  it  were  yes- 
terday. Heattempied  to  account  for  the  numerous 
antiquities  which  are  found  upon  the  continent." 

John  N.  Miller  who  was  a  member  of 
Solomon  SpauJ  ding's  household  for  many 
months  testifies: 

"I  perust  d  Spaulding's  manuscripts  as  I  had  leisure 
more  particularly  the  one  he  called  his  "Manuscript 
Found."  It  purported  to  be  a  history  of  the  first  set- 
tlers o  America.  He  brought  them  off  from  Jerusa- 
lem, under  their  leaders  detailing  their  travels  by 
land  and  by  sea." 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  KELLEY'S   FOURTH    SPEECH. 


Gr;NTT,KMEN   MODEUATOKS,     LADIES  AND 

GKNTI,KMKN  : —  By  way  of  reminding-  you  of 
the  fact  that  sometimes  a  man  gets  frighten- 
ed at  his  own  evil  surmisings  I  call  attention 
to  the  statement  of  my  friend,  "That  he  was 
not  going  to  he  scared  down."  Tliis  was  cer- 
tainly uncalled  for.  Who  has  tried  to  scare 
him  down  ?  Have  I,  or  has  a  single  person 
in  this  audience?  Now,  I  take  this  as  the 
simple  upbraidings  of  his  own  conscience. 
It  reminds  me  of  the  story  of  the  boy  that 
got  terribly  scared  upon  a  certain  occasion. 
His  hair  began  to  stand  up  right  lively,  and 
the  cold  chills  coursed  down  his  hack.  Fin- 
ally he  gathered  up  a  little  courage  and 
edged  up  a  Httle  toward  the  object  of  his 
fright  and  after  straightening  up,  he  stam- 
mered out,  "Who's  afraid?"  It  turned  out 
that  the  boy  had  only  been  stuffed  with  a 
few  ghost  stories  and  was  frightened  at 
nothing.  And  it  seems  to  me  this  is  the 
true  condition  of  my  opponent.  There  is  no 
necessity  of  being  afraid  here.  I  hope  my 
friend  is  not  afraid.  I  can  say  truly  to  you 
that  I  am  not.  What  is  he  afraid  of?  I 
want  him  in  this  discussion  to  bring  the 
strongest  evidence  he  can.  To  do  his  worst, 
as  well  as  best.  Only  let  him  state  facts? 
He  makes  a  statement  with  reference  to 
the  prophecy  of  Jacob  in  the  49th  chapter 
of  Genesis  where  in  blessing  Joseph,  he  tells 
him  his  "  branches,"  (daughters),  "  should 
run  over  the  wall,"  and  says  that  men  have 
read  it  for  thousands  of  years  and  never 
thought  of  applying  it  as  I  have  in  this  dis- 
cussion. Is  that  an  argument  against  the 
force  of  my  position?  On  the  contrary  it 
occurs  to  me  to  be  an  argument  in  favor  of 
it.  When  men  have  read  it,  scanned  it,  for 
thousands  of  years,  and  no  one  conceived 
the  idea  of  applying  it  to  its  proper  place 
until  it  was  made  known  as  we  claim  by  the 
revelation  of  God,  it  argues  in  favor  of  the 
divine  knowledge.  It  is  something  that  was 
not  likely  to  be  spontaneous  in  the  heart  of 
man,  but  let  down  from  heaven  as  were 
many  other  things  that  I  will  be  able  to 
show  you  dui ing  this  discussion.  And  yet 
will  he  deny  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  has 
given  a  single  new  truth  to  the  world? 
Another  thing  he  has  refer  red  to  as  an  argu- 
ment, is  the  sermons  of  the  "notorious 
Stephen  Burrows,"  using  his  language.  He 
seems  to  have  been  a  faithful  student  of 
Burrows.  Now,  his  sermons  may  be  good, 
as  he  claims  from  his  or  the  Disciples' 
(  Carnpbellites)  standpoint  of  judging  ;  but 
I  wi;l  state  to  this  audience  fairly  and  can- 
didly that  no  such  man  as  he  says  he  was, 
could  preach  good  sermons  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  nor  the 
standpoint  of  the  Bible;  and  they  are  not 
good  sermons.  I  invite  him  to  produce  the 
sermons  now,  and  I  will  examine  them  be- 
fore you  and  show  that  they  are  not  good. 


Another  thing.  He  said  that  he  could  show 
that  the  prophecies  of  the  Bible  which  I 
have  quoted  refer  as  much  to  the  Koran  as 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  Why  does  he  not  do 
it  then?  What  is  he  here  for  but  to  show 
what  they  apply  to?  Let  him  doit.  I  deny 
that  he  can  select  a  single  one  that  has  a 
like  or  similar  application,  and  demand  the 
proof.  When  h<?  names  one,  I  will  show  it 
does  not,  nor  cannot  be  made  to  apply  to 
the  Koran  as  obviously  as  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. He  has  so  far  failed,  or  refused,  to 
follow  me  and  notice  my  arguments,  al- 
though he  is  in  the  negaiive  of  the  proposi- 
tion. I  shall  not  be  so  kind  with  him,  but 
will  both  set  forth  my  affirmative  proofs, 
and  expose  the  fallacies  in  his  positions. 
In  his  desperation  to  make  out  a  case  against 
the  Book  of  Mormon  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
ignore  as  applicable  to  man  after  the  Apost- 
les' time,  all  that  is  assuring  and  comforting 
to  the  Christian. 

The  beautiful  promises,  "Seek  and  ye 
shall  find,"  "  Knock  and  it  shall  be  opened 
unto  you,"  "  Ask  and  it  shall  be  given  unto 
you,"  Matt.  7:7;  "If  any  of  you  lack  wis- 
dom, let  him  ask  of  God  that  giveth  to  all 
men  liberally  and  upbraideth  not;  and  it 
shall  be  given  him,"  James  2:5;  "How 
much  more  shall  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask 
him,"  Matt.  7:11;  and  many  other  like  as- 
suring and  comforting  promises,  are  all 
things  of  the  past  with  him.  Confined  to 
the  apostles'  age.  Jesus'  says,  "He  that 
hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them, 
he  it  is  that  loveth  me  ;  and  he  that  loveth 
me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  will 
love  him  and  will  manifest  myself  to  him." 
Again,  "My  Father  will  love  him,  and  we 
will  come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode 
with  him."  John  14:21,  23.  But  according 
to  my  friend's  theory,  all  of  these  promises 
are  limited  to  the  apostles,  and  those  upon 
whom  they  laid  their  hands.  His  theory 
limits  pretty  much  all  of  the  New  Testament 
to  the  apostolic  times  ;  especially  does  it,  all 
giving  assurance  that  the  Christian  may 
have  a  knowledge  of  God.  Christ  said,  "I 
will  pray  the  Father  and  he  shall  give  you 
another  comforter  that  he  may  abide  with 
you  forever;  even  the  Spirit  of  Truth." 
John  14:16,  17.  "Where  two  or  three  are 
met  together  in  my  name  there  I  am  in  the 
midst."  But  my  opponent  makes  this  lim- 
ited to  the  olden  time.  What  is  the  use 
praying  then,  if  God  cannot  give,  and  Jesus 
cannot  be  in  the  midst.  Again,  "The  Spirit 
itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  that 
we  are  the  children  of  God."  "  But  if  the 
Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the 
dead  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Christ 
from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  m  >r- 
tal  bodies  by  His  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in 
you."  Rom.  8: 11-10.  This  is  also  limited 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


37 


by  the  theory  of  the  negative.  Yet,  it  is 
cfear  from  the  texts  themselves,  that  these 
promises  and  experiences  were,  and  are,  for 
the  doers  of  the  word,  the  faithful  in  Christ 
in  every  age. 

John  said,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with 
water  unto  repentance  ;  but  he  that  conieth 
after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes 
I  am  not  worthy  to  bear :  he  shall  baptize 
vou  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
Matt.  3:11.  And  Jesus  in  keeping  with 
this  says,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God."  John  3: 5.  These  texts 
prove  that  the  influence  and  power  of  the 
Spirit  was  to  follow  the  baptism  by  water. 
But  my  opponent  limits  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  and  holds  on  to  the  water.  But 
u  pon  what  authority  ?  A  vain  assumption 
evidently  thought  necessary  to  bolster  up 
his  Campbellite  theory.  His  arguments 
prohibit  salvation  to  the  race  after  the 
apostolic  age.  Jesus  taught,  "Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Yet, 
Mr.  Braderi  says,  there  is  no  birth  or  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  now.  There  would  be 
more  consistency  in  abandoning  both  bap- 
tisms as  they  are  both  taught  by  the  same 
persons  and  at  the  same  time.  In  his  mad- 
ness he  not  only  wars  against  the  claims  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Latter  Day 
SainfcSj  but  all  Christians  who  hold  to  a 
ChrioUan  experience  under  the  divine  ener- 
gies oi  the  Holy  Ghost.  Every  Catholic, 
Episcopalian,  Presbyterian.  'Methodist, 
Friend,  Independent,  or  what  not,  \vho  has 
testified  of  tasting  the  heavenly  gift — the 
joy  of  the  Holy  Ghost  shed  abroad  in  the 
heart,  in  any  age  or  time  since  the  Apos- 
tles,-has  witnessed  falsely.  Their  expe- 
riences are  but  vain  things  and  they,  de- 
ceivers of  themselves.  There  is  no  Spirit- 
ual communion,  so  Mr.  Braden  claims, 
except  through  the  medium  of  the  word. 
His  is  but  a  first  step  in  Atheism.  It  de- 
stroys or  removes  God  out  of  the  world,  if 
not  out  of  the  universe.  Inspiration  is  not 
only  confined  to  the  early  church,  but  God, 
and  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  barred 
out; — limited  and  confined  to  the  Apostles 
alone  and  can  no  longer  move  upon  the 
Christian's  heart.  But  thank  God,  we  are 
assured  of  better  things  :  Says  Paul,  "And 
hope  maketh  not  ashamed  ;  because  the 
love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  the  heart." 
How  ia  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  the 
heart?  "By  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is 
given  unto  us."  Rom*.  5:5.  "Who  hath 
also  sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest 'of  the 
Spirit  in  our  hearts."  2  Cor.  1 :22.  "And 
because  you  are  son 8.  God  hath  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  cry- 
ing, Abba  Father."  "  Iii  whom  ye  also 
trusted  after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of 
truth  the  gospel  of  your  salvation,  in  whom 
also  after  that  ye  believed  ye  were  sealed 
with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  which  is 
the  earnest  of  our  inheritance  until  the  re- 
demption of  the  purchased  possession,  unto 
the  praise  of  his  glory."  Eph.  1  :  13.  This 
was  not  attained  through  the  medium  of 


the  word  as  my  opponent  would  have  you 
believe,  for  the  Apostle  says,  verse  13, 
"After  ye  heard  the  word  of  truth,  after 
that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  the  Spirit  of  promise  the  same  which 
Jesus  said,  "  When  he  is  come  he  will  tes- 
tify of  me."  This  promise  of  the  Spirit  to 
burn  in  the  heart  of  the  Christian  in  fact, 
was  to  continue  until  the  redemption  of  the 
purchased  possession,  and  is  the  evidence 
of  the  right  of  possession.  But  Braden's 
theory  confines  all  this  to  the  apostles' 
time/ and  all  the  experience,  and  knowl- 
edge, that  men  can  have  of  God  now,  is 
through  the  written  word.  Jesus  says, 
"Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believ- 
eth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  and  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned ;  and 
these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe. 
In  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils. 
They  shall  speak  with  new  tongues,"  etc. 
Mark  lf>.  This  message  included  the  entire 
world  of  believers.  The  promise  is,  "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptixed  shall  be 
saved,"  and  "These  signs  shall  follow  them 
that  Wlieve."  Wherever  the  message  was 
to  be  obeyed,  the  signs  were  to  follow. 
Where  the  signs  are  limited,  the  duties  en- 
joined by  the  message  are  limited.  This 
proves  too  much  for  my  opponent's  theory 
and  faith,  for  he  professes  great  faith  in  the 
water  part  of  the  message.  But  if  he  con- 
fines the  result  of  obedience  to  the  &ge  of 
the  apostles,  he  must  confine  the  obligation 
to  obey  the  ordinance  of  baptism  to  that 
age,  and  per  consequence  the  duties  prece- 
ding it,  faith  and  repentance,  which  are 
necessary  to  prepare  one  to  obey  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism.  Thus  he  not  only  limits 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  age  of  the,  apostles, 
but  faith,  repentance  and  baptism  also. 
Hence  he  has  God  and  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  out  of  the  world,  and  so  far  away 
that  neither  can  commune  with  Christians, 
and  the  essential  feature  of  the  gospel  itself 
is  confined  to  the  apostolic  times  and  peo- 
ple. But  Peter  held  to  a  better  faith.  Said 
he,  "  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to 
your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  olf, 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call."  This  promise  was  to  be  realized 
when  they  accepted  the  gospel  message  as 
is  shown  in  verse  38.  of  Acts,  second  chap- 
ter. "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one 
of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sins  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  the  obedient  doer  of  the 
word  was  to  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  wherever  the  gospel  message  WHS 
sent,  as  is  clearly  shown  by  these  texts. 
It  is  not  limited  to  Pentecost  day,  nor  to 
that  age.  Whenever,  and  wherever,  the 
remission  of  sins  took  place  in  all  the  world, 
in  every  a»e,  "ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Hence  Paul  says,  "  Ky 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  gentiles,  whether 
we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and  have  been  all  made 
to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  1  Cor  12:13. 


38 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


This  body  to  which  he  refers,  is  the  church, 
the  body'of  Christ,  so  termed.  Those  who 
joined  in  this  relation  became  "  fit  temples 
for  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
If  these  powers  and  blessings  were  limited 
to  the  early  apostles'  time,  then  the  body 
of  Christ,  the  church  of  God  on  earth  was 
limited  to  that  age. 

Paul  foreseeing  that  such  a  theory 
would  be  foisted  upon  the  world  in  the  fu- 
ture from  his  day.  raised  a  warning  voice 
to  the  people,  declaring,  "that  in  the  last 
days  perilous  times  shall  come,"  by  men, 
"having  a  form  of  godliness,  but  denying 
the  power  thereof."  The  advice  that  fol- 
lows this  announcement  is  most  striking 
and  cheering:  "From  such  turn  away." 
2  Tim.  3:5.  The  apostle  Peter  also,  as  if  on 
purpose  to  put  the  question  beyond  cavil- 
ing, and  at  rest,  says,  "The  promise  is  un- 
to you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call."  To  all  who  are  called 
to  repentance  and  salvation,  and  not  to 
miraculous  power,  as  has  been  stated;  but 
called  to  Christ  Jesus.  God  thus  calls  all 
men  in  every  age.  "In  every  nation  he 
that  feareth  God  and  worketh  rightonsness 
is  accepted  with  him."  "Come  unto  me,  all 
ye  ends  of  the  earth,"  says  God,  "And  be 
ye  saved."  But  my  opponent  says,  Christ 
limited  Joel's  prophecy  made  to  all  flesh,  to 
Pentecost  day,  and  that  Peter  meant  when 
he  said,  "Even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  should  call,"  "That  all  should  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost  on  whom  the  apostles  laid 
their  hands." 

This  is  evidently  a  subterfuge,  and  false 
rendering,  for  there  is  not  a  statement  in 
the  Bible  anywhere  to  the  effect  that  none 
were  to  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  but  those  on 
whom  the  apostles  should  lay  their  hands. 
This  is  gotten  up  out  of  whole  cloth  and 
added  to  the  word  of  God  in  order  to  sup- 
port a  weak  theory.  But  my  opponent 
Beems  to  be  driven  to  the  last  ditch  here. 
He  assumes  to  turn  Jesus  against  his  pro- 
phets. Bays  he,  "Christ  limits  Joel's  pro- 
phecy to  those  on  whom  the  apostles  should 
lay  their  hands."  Why  does  he  want  Joel 
limited?  Ah  I  Joel  speaks  too  loud  for  his 
theory.  Let  me  read  it :  "And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  afterward."  (after  the  time  of 
the  re-gathering  of  Israel  when  they  shall 
never  again  be  ashamed ),  "That  I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and  your 
sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy, 
your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams,  your 
young  men  shall  see  visions:  And  also 
upon  the  servants,  and  upon  the  handmaids 
in  those  days  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit. 
And  I  will  show  wonders  in  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,  blood  and  lire,  and  pillars  of 
smoke."  Joel  2:28-30.  When  shall  this  be? 
In  the  "last  days,"  when  God  shall  have  set 
his  hand  a  second  time  to  gather  his  people. 
"When  Jacob's  (Israel's)  face  shall  no 
longer  wax  pale;"  "afterwards."  All  the 
prophets  agree  as  to  the  time  Not  on  Pente- 
cost day ;  nor  at  the  time  when  the  apostles 
laid  on  hands  during  their  ministry.  Not 
on  a  few  on  Pentecost  day,  and  those  upon 


whom  the  apostles  should  lay  their  hands  ; 
but  "upon  all  flesh."  In  the  period  of  the 
world's  history  when  God  should  "show 
wonders  in  heaven  above,  and  signs  in  the 
earth  beneath  ;  blood  and  fire  and  pillars  of 
smoke."  When,  "The  sun  shall  be  turned 
into  darkness,  and  the  moon  into  blood  be- 
fore the  great  and  notable  day  of  the  Lord 
comes."  This  prophecy  was  not  fulfilled  on 
Pentecost  day.  Nor  does  the  apostle  so 
state.  He  says,  referring  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
that  had  then  rested  upon  and  imbued  the 
disciples,  "This  is  that  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophet  Joel," — the  Spirit  that  Joel 
referred  to  which  should  be  poured  out  in 
the  last  days,  by  which  men  should  see 
visions,  dream  dreams  and  prophesy.  Not 
the  accomplishment  of  what  Joel  said  would 
take  place, — but  the  presence  of  the  Spirit 
— the  agency — by  which  it  would  be  accom- 
plished. Joel  prophesied  of  certain  things 
to  take  place  in  the  "last  days."  My  oppon- 
ent's position  is  that  Christ  corrected  him 
and  says,  no  prophesying  in  the  "last  days;" 
this  is  to  be  confined  to  Pentecost  and  those 
on  whom  the  apostles  shall  lay  their  hands. 
Who  is  right?  Joel  or  my  opponent?  He 
gays  again,  that  no  one  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  save  under  the  apostles'  hands.  But 
Ananias,  who  was  not  an  apostle,  laid  his 
hands  upon  Saul  that  he  "might  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  and  be  healed.  This  shows 
that  the  authority  to  lay  on  hands  for  the 
healing  of  the  sick  and  the  bestowing  of  the 
Spirit,  was  vested  in  the  same  class  of  offi- 
cers. Jesus  says,  "They  shall  lay  hands  on 
the  sick  and  they  shall  recover."  Mark  16. 
James  also  tells  us  who  shall  lay  hands  on 
the  sick,  showing  the  practice  under  the 
Savior's  instruction:  "Is  there  any  ^sick 
among  you?  Let  him  call  for  the  elders  of 
the  church, "&c.  James  5: 14.  Hence,  Paul 
addresses  Timothy,  "Neglect  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by 
prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery."  1  Tim.  4  : 14.  Here  the 
presbytery,  body  of  elders,  officiated  in  lay- 
ing hands  upon  Timothy,  and  a  gift  was 
manifest  by  prophecy  through  the  ordin- 
ance. But  the  negative  in  his  ramblings 
goes  from  bad  to  worse.  He  says  that  the 
Christian  Institution  under  Christ  and  the 
apostles  was  a  little  boy,  playing  with  toys, 
compared  \vith  the  excellency,  perfect! on  t 
and  power  that  followed  after.  How  won- 
derful! Then  they  had  apostles,  prophets, 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  communion  with 
God,  and  the  visitation  of  angels,  thehealing 
of  the  sick  and  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad 
in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which  they 
received;  yet  he  stands  before  you  and 
claims  that  this  is  nothing  to  be  compared 
with  the  condition  of  the  church  that  fol- 
lowed in  after  ages  and  is  now  ex  ant 
almost  universally,  and  from  which  all  of 
this  heavenly  clothing  and  adornment  has 
been  stripped,  as  the  woman  going  into  the 
wilderness  was  shorn  of  her  beauty  and 
heavenly  power. 

One  is  inclined  to  think  he  is  joking 
here,  rather  than  talking  in  earnest;  the 
absurdity  is  so  palpable.  The  Church  of 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Christ  was  to  be  "a  habitation  of  God 
through  the  Spirit."  This  new  theory 
leads  fco  the  conclusion  that  the  world  is 
better  off  and  religion  more  excellent  not 
to  have  God  in  either.  When  God  talks 
with  men.  and  the  Holy  Ghost  fills  their 
souls,  and  they  have  the  testimony  of  Je- 
sus and  certainty  in  religion,  it  is  a  dark 
and  trying  time; — "a  boy  with  his  toys;" 
but  when  neither  God  nor  Christ,  nor  the 
Holy  Ghost,  nor  the  prophets  nor  apostles 
are  known  in  the  church,  or  in  the  world; 
and  division,  and  discord  and  contention, 
distraction  and  uncertainty  everywhere 
reigns,  the  full  grown  man  appears,  with 
all  his  captivating  influences  and  enticing 
graces.  The  gifts  having  passed  away,  he 
says,  we  have  love,  joy,  peace,  etc.  But  did 
not  they  have  all  this  and  God,  and  Cirist 
besides  in  the  "toy  day,"  that  he  refers  to? 
To  support  this  hallucination  he  refers  to 
1  Cor.  13,  and  endeavors  to  show  that  there 
is  a  "more  excellent  way,"  than  to  have 
communion  with  Gotf,  th'rough  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  realization  of  the  gifts  in 
the  church.  "Charity  never  faileth." 
Right;  but  it  is  found  in  and  enjoyed  most 
by  those  exercising  the  gifts  of  the  gospel. 
Charity  is  love,  the  pure  love  of  God.  It 
is  for  the  saints  here,  and  in  the  future 
•world,  when  they  shall  reign  with  God. 
<(But  whether  there  be  prophecies  they 
shall  fail;  whether  there  be  tongues  they 
«hall  cease;  whether  there  be  knowledge  it 
shall  vanish  away."  When  shall  these 
things  cease?  My  opponent  says,  in  the  age 
of  the  apostles,  i.  e.t  when  the  apostles 
died  and  there  was  no  one  to  lay  on 
hands;  and  thus  from  sheer  necessity.  But 
this  proves  too  much  for  him.  If  it  was 
because  the  apostles  died,  it  could  not  have 
been  because,  "that  which  is  perfect  is 
•come;"  unless  the  killing  of  the  apostles 
brought  perfection.  Knowledge,  prophe- 
cies, and  tongues  are  classed  together,  and 
if  he  takes  it  that  these  are  to  cease  with- 
out reference  to  the  "part"  exercise  of 
them  as  explained  by  the  apostle  himself, 
all  are  mustered  out  together,  and  become 
things  of  the  past  at  the  same  time.  It 
would  scarcely  do  for  me  to  tell  such  a 
towering  light  as  rny  opponent;  that  knowl- 
edge ceased  in  the  apostolic  age;  tha,t  was 
the  age  «;f  boys,  the  "tcy  age."  But  his 
theory  forces  him  to  do  so.  If  iu  is  said  that 
this  reieis  to  miraculous  knowledge,  I  ask 
what  kind  is  that?  Certaimy  it  does  not 
come  under  that  classed  as  learning  "erudi- 
tion, scholarship.  &c.  Nor  "cognition,  no- 
tice," &c.  It  must  be  then  of  "apprehen- 
sion, comprehension,  understanding,  dis- 
cernment, judgment."  Will  he  take  the 
position  that  this  kind  of  knowledge  has 
ceased  from  the  church?  No  wonder  things 
looked  dark  to  Mr.  Wesley.  Let  us  permit 
the  apostle  to  be  his  own*  interpreter  here. 
Verses  9  and  10,  "  For  we  know  in  part,  and 
prophesy  in  part,  but  when  that  which  is 
perfect  is  come,  chen  that  which  is  in  part 
shall  be  done  away."  What  shall  be  done 
away?  Doing  in  part.  Knowledge  in  part  • 
prophesying  m  part ;  speaking  in  Jamrtuures 


only  in  part.  When  shall  it  be  done  away? 
Answer:  "When  that  wniek  is  perfect  is 
come:  "  and  this  is  when  part  prophesying 
and  knowing  in  part  will  cease.  My  oppo- 
nent says,  Paul  is  contrasting  two  states  of 
the  church  :  One  under  the  spiritual  gifts, 
the  other  under  a  "  perfected"  state  without 
spiritual  gifts,  or  communion  with  God 
except  as  may  be  received  through  the  writ- 
ten word  : — that  is  from  reading  the  Bible. 
This  is  another  of  his  fallacies.  Paul  is  con- 
trasting the  state  of  the  church  and  saints 
here  with  the  condition  that  is  to  be  attained 
in  the  future  world,  at  the  coming  of  Jesus 
the  second  time.  "Now,  (in  this  life — this 
side  of  a  time  of  perfection,)  I  see  through  a 
glass  darkly;  but  then  shall  I  know,  even 
as  I  am  known."  When  this  perfect  time 
shall  come  then  Paul  will  know  as  he  is 
known  ;  until  that  time  he  sees  through  a 
a  glass  darkly  walking  by  the  light  of  pro- 
phesying in  part,  and  knowing  only  in  part. 
There  is  nothing  more  clear,  than  if  Paul 
with  his  spiritual  vision,  knowledge  and 
prophecy,  could  know  only  in  part,  there 
has  been  no  state  of  the  church  since  his 
day  when  man  attained  to  a  more  perfect 
knowledge  And  more  especially  must 
this  be  conceded  by  my  opponent,  when  he 
and  his  Campbellite  Church,  assumes  that 
all  that  men  can  know  of  God,  and  religion 
now,  is  by  reading  the  Bible  written  in  part 
by  Paul  himself,  and  wholly,  so  far  as  its 
divinity  is  concerned,  when  men  were  blest 
with  the  spiritual  gifts  and  had  communion 
with  God.  The  facts  are  these :  The  light 
of  God  only  comes  to  earth  in  part.  The 
Saints  of  old  knew  in  part  and  prophesied 
in  part ;  but  they  looked  forward  to  the 
future  when  the  knowledge  in  part  should 
be  a  thing  of  the  past,  and  they  would  know 
as  they  were  known.  My  opponent  says, 
this  was  after  the  apostles  passed  away  and 
the  church  became  a  full-grown  man.  But 
who  can  believe  him  when  he  further  says 
that  the  Christians,  or  the  world,  knows 
more  of  duty  and  the  light  of  heaven,  and 
are  in  a  higher,  more  advanced  and  perfect 
state  than  when  the  spiritual  gifts,  were 
extant  and  there  was  communion  with  God? 
The  gifts  were  to  continue  until  the  day  of 
perfect  knowledge  should  come.  "  The  day 
of  Christ."  2  Thess.  2 : 2.  Paul  says  in  the 
Ephesian  letter,  fourth  chapter-  "  And  he 
gave  some,  apostles ;  and  some,  prophets 
and  some,  evangelists;  and  some  pastors 
and  teachers."  What  for?  "For  the  per- 
fecting of  the  Saints  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try, for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ," 
or  the  church.  How  long  was  this  inspired 
ministry  to  continue?  The  apostle  answers 
in  the  next  sentence.  "  Till  Ve  all  come  in 
the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto 
the  measure  of  the  statum  of  the  fulness  of 
Christ."  And  all  this  for  the  purpose: — 

"  That  we  henceforth  be  uo  more  children  tossed  to 
•'  and  fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doc- 
'  trine,  by  the  sleight  of  men  and  cunning  craftiness, 
'whereby  they  lie  in  wait  u-  deceive;  but  -peakirnj  the 
'truth  in  love,  m  y  grow  up  unto  him  in  all  things, 
which  is  .the  head,  even  Christ.  •  From  whom  the 
'whole  body  iitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by 
'that  which  every  joint  supplicth.  according  to  the 


40 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


"effectual  working  in  the  measure  of  every  part,  mak- 
"eth  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in 
"in  love."  11  to  16  verses. 

This  scripture  confirms  the  opinion  that 
the  apostles  and  prophets  were  designed  to 
continue  in  the  church,  that  the  people 
might  be  "no  more  children  tossed  to  and 
fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of 
doctrine." 

But  Mr.  Braden  reverses  it,  and  says  the 
apostles  and  gifts  ceased  that  we  might  be 
no  more  children,  but  full  grown  men. — 
That  was  "the  children  or  toy  day"  of  the 
church.  However  the  apostle  further  tells 
us,  that  they  were  to  continue  till  we  all 
come  to,  "the  knowledg-e  of  the  Son  of  God, 
unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of 
the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ." 
Again,  "God  hath  set  some  in  th-e 
church,  first  apostles,  secondly  proph- 
ets, thirdly  teachers,  after  that  mir- 
acles, then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  govern- 
ments, diversities  of  tongues,"  1  Cor.  12:28. 
"God  has  set  the  members  every  one  in  the 
body  as  it  hath  pleased  him."  This  body 
in  which  he  placed  thes»  members  is  his 
church  ;  and  he  placed  them  in  the  body, 
the  church,  to  edify  the  same  and  to  contin- 
ue therein,  until  "we  all  come  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  of  God;"  -but  now  we  are 
gravely  told  that  they  are  not  necessary  or 
essential  to  the  proper  growth  ot  the  body, 
and  that  they  are  not  to  continue  "till  we 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God." 
But  since  it  is  by  this  same  Holy  Spirit  that 
wa»  manifest  on  Pentecost  day,  and  by 
which  the  signs  followed  the  believer,  and 
which  God  gave  by  gift  to  the  ministry, 
and  poured  out  upon  all  the  believers,  that 
we  may  at  all  attain  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ,  will  he  now  be  so  kind  as  to  tell  us 
whether  he  expects  by  banishing  the  means 
of  knowledge,  to  ha've  the  people  become 
enlightened?  "No  man  can  say  that  Jesus 
is  the  Lord."  [come  to  the  knowledge  of 
him],  "but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  1  Cor. 
12:3. 

He  says  again,  the  "Mormons  baptize  for 
miraculous  gifts."  But  he  also  told  you, 
they  got  their  baptism  through  a  Campbel- 
lite  preacher,  Sidney  Bigdon.  Do  THEY 
baptize  for  miraculous  gifts?  The  Saints  do 
not  now,  nor  never  did  baptize  for  miracu- 
lous gifts.  That  is  out  of  whole  cloth. 

They  baptize  "for  the  remission  of  sins," 
and  then  say  as  the  apostles  taught,  that 
the  obedient  doer  or' the  word  is  entitled  to, 
the  Holy  Ghost  by  reason  of  the  "promise." 

Again,  he  claims  that,  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  an  addition  to  the  Bible.  This  is  in- 
correct. The  Book  of  Mormon  stands  alone, 
as  a  work  or  as  a  revelation  from  Deity  and 
is  complete  of  itself;  as  the  Bible  'stands 
alone  and  is  complete,  (so  far  as  the  book  is 
concerned  and  a  record  of  God's  will  as  re- 
vealed upon  the  Eastern  continent),  so  is 
the  Book  of  Mormon  of  a  like  history  and  of 
that  same  will,  as  revealed,  upon  the  Wes- 
tern continent.  The  Book  of  M«i:mon  is?  in 
no  true  sense  an  addition  to  the  Bible  :  no 
such  claim  is,  or  has  ever  been,  made  for  it, 
by  the  book  itself,  or  its  friends.  But  it  con- 


firms the  Bible  in  its  testimony,  and  this  is 
answer  enough  if  we  had  no  other  as  to  the 
good  of  the  work.  The  Bible  is  a  record  of 
the  Jews  and  their  religion.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  is  a  record  of  the  people  who  came 
to  and  lived  upon  the  Western  continent 
and  their  religion.  It  is  not  true  as  assert- 
ed, that  the  Latter  Day  Saints  hold  the 
revelations  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  in  high- 
er veneration  than  they  do  the  revelations 
of  the  Bible  With  them  a  revelation  from 
God,  given  to  the  world  in  Palestine,  is  just  as 
worthy  of  consideration  and  respect,  as  one 
given  in  America ;  and  one  from  a  similar 
source  in  America,  just  as  good  as  one  given 
in  Palestine.  Neither  is  age  a  consequence 
as  to  the  truth  or  applicability  of  it.  God 
over  all  is  rich,  and  none  can  limit  His  pow- 
er of  giving  and  revealing.  If  a  church  that 
denies  to  its  members  the  light  and  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  of  communion  with  God, 
through  the  Comforter,  and  an  approach  to 
the  life  of  the  church  of  the  First  Born,  and 
Jesus  the  Mediator,  is  not  a  Jack  o'lantern 
light  to  the  world,  then  there  is  no  faint 
and  dim  glimmering  anywhere.  Now  I 
wish  to  refer  hurriedly  to  what  he  stated 
last  evening  by  way  of  an  illustration,  using 
the  American  government,  or  the  compact 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  framers,  in  a 
comparison,  to  the  apostles  and  their  work, 
or  to  those  whom  he  says  gave  us  the  Bible. 
The  trouble  with  his  illustration  is,  that  it 
is  not  a  parallel  case  as  used  by  him.  The 
framers  of  the  American  Constitution  were 
selected  by  the  American  people,  and  au- 
thorized by  them  to  meet  and  in  their  own 
wisdom  frame  a  constitution  which  should, 
if  ratified,  be  the  ^roveming  or  fundamental 
law.  In  the  word  of  God,  as  committed  to 
the  world,  the  apostles  are  not  the  framers, 
or  makers,  neither  the  ones  to  ratify  as  well 
as  devise  or  institute.  They  could  approve 
or  reject  as  they  chose,  but  this  action  could 
not  affect  the  law,  only  themselves,  as  wit- 
ness the  act  'f  Judas.  'They  were  the  means 
simply  of  communicating  that  knowledge 
to  the  world  that  was  framed  and  devised 
by  Deity  himself.  And  when  my  opponent 
seeks  by  his  illustration  to  reason  apostles 
out  of  the  world,  he  makes  the  blunder  of 
placing  the  apostles  in  the  position  occupied 
by  Deity  himself,  to  the  New  Testament, 
and  his  illustration  legitimately,  instead  of 
showing  that  apostles  were  to  cease,  puts 
God  out  of  the  Universe  and  out  of  the 
church,  instead  of  the  apostles.  This  is 
why  I  object  to  his  theory.  It  is  but  on  n 
par  with  his  other  argument,  wherein  ho 
has  sought  to  shut  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  lifo 
and  power  of  the  gospel  out  of  the  church. 
God  gave  the  covenant  or  constitution  ot  the 
'Christian  Church,  and  it  was  not  the  work 
of  the  apostles.  The  apostles  were  the 
means  of  teaching  this  constitution  to  the 
world; — "ambassadors"  to  publish  the  glad 
news.  The  publication  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  was  not  by  the  fram 
era,  but  by  means  of  another's  agency,  tho 
press,  and  public,  criers  selected  for  that 
purpose.  The  framers  of  the  constitution 
so  far  as  their  work  was  concerned,  would 


THE  Bit  A  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


41 


bear  a  likeness  to  De/ty,  who  framed  and 
gave  the  gospel  law.  Says  Jesus  in  his  de- 
livery of  the  law ;  "The  Father  which  sent 
me,  he  gave  me  a  commandment,  what  I 
should  say,  and  what  I  should  speak." 
John  12:49.  The  apostles  are,  in  the  com- 
parison, in  fact  but  the  publishers,  ambass- 
adors, preachers.  For  God  to  give  direction 
how  he  would  have  these  laws  carried  out, 
would  not  necessarily  either,  be  making 
"new  constitution  every  day ;"  any  more  than 
he  was  making  new  constitution  every  day 
in  the  time  of  Paul  and  John.  Who  will 
say  that  because  we  have  a  constitution  or 
first  basis  in  our  government,  we  shall  have 
no  more  laws.  The  only  restriction  is,  that 
the  laws  shall  not  conflict  with  the  con- 
stitution. 

The  next  objection  I  shall  take  up  and 
examine,  is  that  profound  and  doubtless 
scholarly  argument,  based  upon  the  mirac- 
ulous in  the  creation  of  the  world.  That 
since  God  created  the  earth  by  miraculous 
power,  therefore  he  says,  I  would  have  him 
continue  to  keep  a  miracle  going  all  the 
time,  in  order  that  we  might  have  miracu- 
lous things  or  new  animals  and  plants. 
But  he  forgets  that  when  God  created  the 
earth  by  miraculous  power,  if  he  wishes  to 
call  it  miraculous,  he  at  the  same  time 
established  in  the  same  miraculous  manner, 
for  aught  my  opponent  can  tell,  a  law  by 
which  those  things  which  were  created, 
that  he  calls  miraculous,  were  to  be  repro- 
duced. And  we  have  the  miraculous  plants 
aud  animals  now' by  virtue  of  .that  law. 
Just  the  same  as  he  ordained  in  the  first 
age  of  Christianity  by  the  law  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  apostles  should  continue  if  men 
kept  the  faith,  and  if  they  kept  not  the 
faith,  then  they  should  not  continue;  and 
if  we  have  not  the  fruits  by  the  ordination 
of  the  law  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  because 
the  law  has  not  been  kept,  for  God  has  not 
changed. 

Will  my  opponent  now  stop  to  tell  us 
whether  the  law  by  which  the  natural  cre- 
ation is  now  continued  is  not  the  same  by 
which  God  originally  wrought  when  it  first 
germinated?  When  did  Deity  change,  or 
at  what  time  did  the  new  law  take  the 
place  of  the  old?  Make  the  comparison, 
and  follow  it  to  its  conclusion  and  you  will 
see  that  instead  of  supporting  his  theory 


it  destroys  it.  God  in  the  creation  of 
the  world  brought  forth  certain  things, 
and  ordained  a  means  by  which  they 
should  continue  and  they  continue  as  at 
the  first  by  that  means,  and  as  the  law 
provided,  to  the  just  and  unjust  alike.  In 
the  establishment  of  his  church  he  did 
many  things  which  showed  the  proper 
fruits  of  his  law,  by  means  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  ordained  that  they  should  con- 
tinue by  means  of  the  same  agency  and 
power,  to  the,  believer,  the  doer  of  the  word, 
for  this  law  was  limited  to  such,  and  not 
as  the  other,  made  alike  to  the  just  and  the 
unjust.  Do  they  continue?  Has  God 
changed  ?  The  law  governing  should  as  in 
the  order  of  creation  cause  the  same  effect, 
and  bring  to  the  believer,  knowledge,  wis- 
dom, faith,  prophecies,  tongues  and  heal- 
ings. These  are  the  legitimate  fruits  of 
the  law  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  believer. 
But  my  opponent  says  no.  Why?  The 
simple  reason  is  his  people  do  not  have 
the  fruits,  and  the  application  will  show 
that  they  are  not  "  doers  of  the  word." 

Now  I  call  your  attention  to  the  real  im- 
port of  the  story  he  related,  which  certainly 
displayed  his  ingenuity  in  taking  an  eco- 
nomical way  of  meeting  my  arguments.  I 
have  several  times  called  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  he  was  not  debating  properly 
this  question,  and  that  he  had  abandoned 
any  defense,  so  far  as  meeting  my  argu- 
ments is  concerned  ;  and  now,  he  comes  in 
and  admits  it  in  his  story  of  the  boy,  that 
he  says  was  only  waiting  for  something 
sufficient  to  roll  up  so  that  he  could  have 
something  to  kick  at.  He  is  waiting  for 
my  arguments  to  roll  up. 

This  reminds  me  of  another  boy.  He  saw 
an  object  in  the  path  and  at  first  sight  he 
concluded  he  would  kick  it  out.  As  he 
neared  it,  the  object  looked  a  little  firmer 
than  at  first,  but  he  thought  he  would  kick 
at  it  any  way.  Finally  he  drew  quite  close 
and  the  object  looked  as  if  it  was  bundled 
up  so  tightly,  that  if  he  kicked  he  might 
get  his  toes  hurt,  and  so  he  did  not  kick  at 
all ;  and  this  seems  to  me  to  be  the  true 
reason  why  he  has  not  foot-balled  my  argu- 
ment. 

(Laughter  and  applause.)  (Time  ex- 
pired.) 


42 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.    BRADEN'S    FOURTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS.  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — Mrs.  Matilda  Spaulding, 
Solomon  Spaulding'8  wife  testifies,  after 
stating  that  Mr.  Spaulding  was  very  much 
interested  in  the  antiquities  found  around 
Conneaut : 

"Mr.  Ppaulding  conceived  the  Idea  of  writing  a  his- 
tory  of  the  long  lost  race  that  produced  these  antiqui- 
ties. Their  extreme  antiquity  lead  him  to  write  in  the 
most  ancient  style,  and  as  the  Old  Testament  was  the 
oldest  book  in  the  world,  he  imitated  its  style,  as  much 
as  possible.  As  he  progressed  in  his  narrative,  the 
neighbors  would  come  in  from  time  to  time,  to  hear 
portions  read,  and  a  great  interest  in  the  work  was  ex- 
cited among  them.  It  claimed  to  have  been  written  by 
one  of  the  lost  nation,  and  to  have  been  recovered  from 
the  earth.  The  neighbors  would  often  ask  how  Mr. 
Spaulding  progressed  in  deciphering  the  manuscript, 
and  when  he  had  a  sufficient  portion  prepared,  he 
would  inform  them,  and  they  would  assemble  to  hear 
it  read.  He  was  enabled,  from  his  acquaintance  with 
the  classics  and  ancient  history  to  introduce  many  sin- 
gular names,  which  were  particularly  notified  by  the 
people,  and  could  easily  be  recognized  by  them." 

Let  us  say  in  passing  that  "  Mormon  "  is 
one  of  those  names.  It  is  from  the  Greek 
and  means  literally  a  "  bug-bear,  a  hobgob- 
lin." 

Miss  Martha  Spaulding,  now  Mrs.  Kins- 
try,  Spaulding's  daughter  testifies  :  "  My 
Father  read  the  manuscript  I  had  seen  him 
writing  to  the  neighbors  and  to  a  clergy- 
man a  friend  of  his  who  came  to  visit  him. 
Some  of  the  names  he  mentioned  while 
reading  to  the  people  I  have  never  for- 
gotten. They  are  as  fresh  in  my  memory 
as  though  I  had  heard  them  but  yester- 
day. They  are  Mormon,  Moroni,  Lamanite 
and  Nephi,  etc.,  etc." 

Joseph  Miller  of  Amity,  Pa.,  who  was  in- 
timate with  Spaulding  while  he  lived  in 
Amity,  nursed  him  in  his  last  illness,  and 
heard  him  read  much  from  his  manuscript, 
says : 

"Mr.  Spaulding  seemed  to  take  great  delight  in  read- 
Ing  from  his  manuscript  written  on  foolscap.  I  heard 
him  read  most  if  not  all  of  it;  and  had  frequent  con- 
ve  sations  with  him  about  it.  Some  time  ago  I  heard 
most  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  read.  On  hearing  read 
the  account  of  the  battle  between  the  Amlicites  (Book 
of  Alma,  chapter  II. ),  in  which  the  soldiers  of  one 
army  placed  a  red  mark  on  their  foreheads,  to  distin- 
guish them  from  their  enemies,  it  seemed  to  reproduce 
in  my  mind  not  only  the  narrative  but  the  very  words, 
as  they  had  been  imprinted  on  my  mind  by  reading 
Spaulding's  manuscript." 

Ruddick  McKee  of  Washington  D.  C.  tes- 
tifies : 

"I  was  a  boarder  at  Spaulding's  tavern  in  Amity, 
Pa.,  in  the  fall  of  1814.  I  recollect  quite  well  Mr. 
Spaulding  spending  much  time  in  writing  on  sheets  of 
paper  torn  from  an  old  book,  what  purported  to  be  a 
veritable  history  of  the  nations  or  tribes  that  inhabited 
Canaan.  He  called  it  'Lost  Manuscript'  or  some  such 
name.  I  was  struck  with  the  minuteness  of  its  details 
and  apparent  sincerity  and  truthfulness  of  the  author 
1  have  an  indistinct  recollection  of  the  passage  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Miller,  about  the  Amlicites  making  a  cross 
with  red  paint  in  their  foreheads  to  distinguish  them 
from  their  enemies  in  the  confusion  of  battle." 

Mr.  Abner  Jackson  of  Canton  Ohio  who 
heard  Spaulding  read  the  MS.  to  his  father 
in  Conneaut,  just  before  his  removal  to 
Fittsburg,  testifies : 


"Spaulding  frequently  read  his  MS.  to  the  neighbors 
and  commented  on  it  as  he  progressed.  He  wrote 
it  in  Bible  style,  'And  it  came  to  pass'  occurred  so  ofte.» 
that  some  called  him  '  Old  come  to  pass.'  The  names. 
Mormon,  Moroni,  Nephi,  Nephite,  Laman,  Lamanite, 
etc.,  were  in  it.  The  closing  scene  was  at  Cumorah, 
where  all  the  righteous  were  slain." 

We  propose  now  to  introduce  Sidney  Rig- 
don  himself.  Rev.  John  Winter,  M.  D.  waa 
teaching  school  in  Pittsburg,  and  was  a 
member  of  the  First  Baptist  church  wheu 
Rigdon  was  its  pastor  and  was  intimate 
with  Rigdon.  He  testifies  that 

"In  1822  or  3  Rigdon  took  out  of  his  desk  In  his  study 
a  large  MS.  stating  that  it  was  a  Bible  romance  pur- 
porting to  be  a  history  of  the  American  Indians.  That 
it  was  written  by  one  Spaulding  a  Presbyterian  preach- 
er whose  health  had  failed  and  who  had  taken  it  to 
the  printers  to  see  if  it  would  pay  to  publish  it.  And 
that  he  (Rigdon)  had  borrowed  it  from  the  printer  as  a 
curiosity." 

James  Jeffries,  an  old  and  highly  respect- 
ed citizen  of  Churchville  Hartford  Co.  Ma- 
ryland, testifies,  in  a  statement  he  dictated 
to  Rev.  Calvin  D.  Wilson,  Jan.  20th  1884,  in 
the  presence  of  his  wife  and  J.  M.  Finney, 
M.  D. ;  and  attested  by  Dr.  Finney,  Rev 
Wilson  and  Mrs.  James  Jeffries  : 

"Forty  rears  ago  I  was  in  business  in  St.  Louis.  The 
Mormons  then  had  their  temple  in  Nauvoo  Illinois.  I 
had  business  transactions  with  them  I  knew  Sidney 
Rigdon.  He  acted  as  general  manager  of  the  business 
of  the  Mormons  (with  me)  Rigdon  told  me  several 
times,  in  his  conversation  with  me,  that  there  was  in 
the  printing  office  with  which  he  was  connected  in 
Ohio,  a  MS.  of  the  Rev  Spaulding,  tracing  the  origin  of 
the  Indians  from  the  lost  tribes  of  Israel.  This  MS. 
was  in  the  office  several  years.  He  was  tamiliar  with 
it.  Spaulding  wanted  it  published  but  had  not  the 
means  to  pay  for  printing.  He  (Rigdon)  and  Joe  Smith 
used  to  look  over  the  MS.  and  read  it  on  Sundays.  Rig- 
don said  Smith  took  the  MS.  and  said  'I'll  print  it,'  and 
went  off  to  Palmyra  New  York." 

"  Forty  years  ago  "  would  be  the  fall  of 
1844,  just  after  Rigdon  had  been  driven  out 
of  Nauvoo.  The  Times  and  Seasons  assailed 
him  bitterly,  that  fall  and  winter,  for  ex- 
posing Morinonism.  On  his  way  from  Nau- 
voo to  Pittsburg,  he  called  on  his  old  ac- 
quaintance, Mr.  Jeffries,  in  St.  Louis,  and, 
in  his  anger  at  the  Mormons,  he  let  out  the 
secrets  of  Mormonism,  just  as  he  told  the 
Mormons  he  would,  if  they  did  not  make 
him  their  leader. 

George  Clark,  son  of  Jerome  Clark  of 
Harwicke,  N.  Y.,  testifies  that  Mrs  David- 
son left  the  trunk  containing  her  first  hus- 
band's MSS.  at  his  fathers,  before  she  went 
to  Munson  Mass,  to  live  with  her  daughter. 
He  says : 

"Shortly  before  Hurlbut  got  the  M3.  from  fathers, 
during  a  visit  to  fathers,  Mrs  Davidst  n  gave  to  my  wife 
to  read,  a  MS.  written  by  her  first  bus  baud,  Spaulding; 
remarking  as  she  handed  her  the  MS. :  'The  Mormon 
Bible  is  almost  a  literal  copy  of  this  MS.'  " 

It  was  this  MS.  Hurlbut  obtained  from 
Jerome  Clark,  and  which  he  never  deliv- 
ered to  Howe.  He  retained  it  and  gave  to 
Howe  a  few  leaves,  the  beginning  of  an 
entirely  different  MS. 

Scores  of  witnesses  who  would  have  cor- 
roborated the  above  could  have  found 


TJUS  BRADEN  AND  KEI/LEY  DEBATE.* 


wnere  the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared,  but 
these  are  enough  certainly. 

We  wish  now  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  these  facts.  1.  We  have  proved 
by  sixteen  witnesses  of  the  highest  char- 
acter, one  Solomon  Spaulding's  brother, 
another  his  sister-in-law,  another  his  wife, 
another  his  daughter,  another  his  business 

Eartner,  another  one  who  was  an  inmate  of 
is  family  for  many  months,  another  one 
•with  whom  Spaulding  boarded  for  months, 
and  the  others  intimate  acquaintances,  that 
between  the  years  1809  and  1816  Solomon 
Spaulding  spent  much  of  his  time  in  pre- 
paring manuscripts  for  a  book  he  intended 
to  publish  called  the  "Manuscript  Found." 
II.  That  from  reading  it  and  hearing  him 
rend  it  they  became  more  or  less  familiar 
•with  the  contents  of  his  manuscript.  III. 
Their  description  of  his  manuscript  is  as  ac- 
curate an  outline  of  the  historic  portion  of 
the  Nephite  part  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
in  the  plot  of  the  story,  the  starting  point 
of  the  history,  its  leading  incidents,  jour- 
neys, wars  etc.,  the  names  of  the  principal 
chaiacters,  as  any  average  Mormon  can 
give.  IV.  They  mention  only  the  Nephite 
portion  of  the  book  of  Mormon,  with  one 
exception  which  we  will  soon  give.  V. 
They  all  declare  that  there  was  no  religious 
matler  in  his  manuscript.  VI.  Oliver 
Smith  testifies  that  Spaulding  told  him  just 
before  going  to  Pittsburg,  that  he  would 
prepare  the  manuscript  for  press  while 
there,  living  a  retired  life  for  that  purpose. 
VII  J.  N.  Miller  testifies,  that  in  explain- 
ing his  book  to  him,  SpauJding  told  him 
that  he  lauded  the  people  at  the  Isthmus  of 
Darien  which  he  called  Zarahemla. 

From  all  these  facts  we  gather  these 
conclusions.  That  Spaulding  wrote,  at 
first  only  tlie  historic  part  of  the  Nephite 
portion  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  This 
was  his  second  manuscript  which  we  will 
call  manuscript  No  II.  or  Mormon  manu- 
script No.  I.  It  was  this  small  manuscript 
that  Mrs.  Martha  Spaulding  his  daughter 
saw  in  the  trunk  at  W.  H.  Sabins  her 
uncles  in  Onadago,  Valley.  N.  Y.  about 
the  year  1823.  From  the  amount  of  writing 
Spaulding  did  during  the  seven  years,  and 
from  Miller's  description,  it  is  evident  that 
he  prepared  a  more  complete  manuscript 
adding  the  Zarahemla  emigration.  This 
we  wilt  call  manuscript  No.  III.  Mormon 
m  -nuscript  No.  2.  In  1812  Spaulding  mov- 
ed to  Pittsburg,  for  the  purpose  of  publish- 
ing his  book,  intending,  as  he  told  Oliver 
Smith  to  lead  a  retired  life  and  rewrite  it 
for  the  press.  He  showed  it,  his  daughter 
testifies  to  Mr.  Patterson,  a  publisher  in 
Pittsburg  who  told  him  to  rewrite  it  for  the 
press  and  he  would  publish  it.  He  did  so 
and  added  the  Jaredite  emigration.  Mrs. 
Spaulding,  his  wife,  and  Miss  Spaulding 
his  daughter,  testify,  that  he  sent  the 
manscript  to  Patterson's  publishing  house. 
'Mr.  Miller,  Mr.  McKee  and  Dr.  Dodd  of 
Amity,  Pa.,  testify  that  Spaulding  told 
them  he  had  done  so.  In  1814  Spaulding 
then  in  very  poor  health  went  to  Amity, 
Washington  Qo.,  Pa.  His  wife  kept  tuveru 


and  supported  the  family.  Spanldinsf 
continued  to  write  on  his  manuscript  and 
read  it  to  all  who  would  listen  to  him  un- 
til his  death  Oct.  20th  1816. 

His  wife  and  daughter  put  his  manu- 
script and  papers  that  they  found,  into  a 
trunk  and  took  it  with  them  to  the  resi- 
dence of  a  brother  of  Mrs.  Spaulding  W. 
H.  Sabiu,  Onandago,  Valley,  Onandago 
county,  N.  Y.  lii  1820  Mrs.  Spaulding 
went  to  Pomfret  Conn.  Sometime  after- 
wards she  married  a  Mr.  Davidson  of  Hart- 
wicke,  Otsego,  county  N.  Y.and  went  there 
to  live.  She  left  her  daughter  Miss  Mar- 
tha Spaulding  with  her  uncle  Mr.  Sabin, 
and  left  the  trunk  containing  the  manu- 
scripts in  her  care.  M  BS  Spaulding  testi- 
fies that  she  read  one  of  die  manuscripts,  a 
small  one,  either  Spaulding's  first  draft  of 
the  story,  or  his  Mormon  manuscript  No. 
1.— the  one  he  wrote  in  1809-10.  She  also 
testifies  that  while  she  was  at  her  uncles, 
Joseph  Smith  worked  as  teamster  for  her 
uncle,  and  learned  of  the  existence  of  the 
manuscript.  Impostor  Joe  places  his  first 
vision  concerning  the  plates,  Sept.  1823.  As 
this  is  his  way  of  dressing  up  his  first 
knowledge  of  the  manuscript  he  worked  for 
Sabin  in  September,  1823,  and  learned  of 
the  existence  of  the  manuscript  then. 
Sometime  after  her  moving  to  Hartwicke, 
and  after  Sept.  1823,  Mrs.  Davidson  sent  for 
tlie  trunk  and  it  was  sent  from  Onandago, 
Valley,  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Davidson  in 
Hartwicke.  In  1828  Miss  Martha  Spaulding 
married  Dr.  McKinstry  and  went  to  Mun- 
son  Mass,  to  live.  1830  Mrs.  Davidson  left 
Hartwicke  and  went  to  Munson  to  live  with 
her  daughter  Mrs.  McKinstry.  She  left 
the  trunk  containing  the  manuscript  and 
papers — that  is  all  she  and  her  daughter 
found  after  Spaulding's  death,  in  care  of 
her  brother-in-law  Jerome  Clark,  in  Hart- 
wicke. Here  it  stayed  until  it  was  opened 
by  Philastus  Hurlbut  and  Jerome  Clark  in 
1834.  Hurlbut  had  visited  Mrs.  Davidson, 
and  Mrs.  McKinstry  in  Munson,  and  ob- 
tained an  order  from  them  authorizing  him 
to  open  the  trunk,  and  examine  its  contents. 

We  are  ready  now  to  introduce  the  per- 
son who  was  instrumental  in  giving  to  the 
world  the  "  Book  of  Mormon."  Sidney  Rig- 
don  was  born 
St.  Clatr  township, 
February  19, 

his  father  until  the  death  of  the  latter  in 
1810;  when  Sidney  was  17  years  old.  All 
the  education  .he  obtained  he  got  in  a  log 
school-house  near  his  home.  After  hia 
father's  death  he  still  made  his  home  at  his 
mother's  pretending  to  work  on  the  farm  and 
to  farm  the  land  part  of  the  time,  but  was, 
bib  neighbors  say,  too  lazy  or  too  proud  to 
worfc.  A  dispute  has  arisen  over  the  ques- 
tion whether  he  was  in  Pittsburg  before  he 
went  there  in  1822,  to  take  charge  of  the 
first  Baptist  church.  His  friends  assert 
that  he  did  not  life' In  Pittsburg  till  that 
time.  A  dispute  arises  over  the  question 
whether  he  learned  the  printers'  art  in 
early  life.  Also  whether  he  worked  in  the 
oil  ice  of  Patterson,  when  Spauldiug's  mauu« 


.BOOK  or  Mormon."  eianey  Jttig- 
rn  near  the  village  of  Library  in 
wnship,  Allegany  county,  Pa., 
),  1793.  He  lived  on  the  farm  of 


44 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


script  was  taken  there  to  be  published. 
His  friends  deny  this,  and  persons  employ- 
ed in  Patterson's  office  before  and  after  that 
time,  say  they  remember  no  such  employee 
of  the  office,  and  Rigdon  denied  it  most  em- 
phatically. Mr.  Patterson  remembers  noth- 
ing of  him.  On  the  other  hand  Mrs. 
Davidson,  Spaulding's  wife,  declares  posi- 
tively that  he  was  connected  with  the  office. 
Mr.  Miller  of  Amity,  Mr.  McKee,  and  Dr. 
Dodd  testify  that  Mr.  Spaulding  so  inform- 
ed them.  There  must  have  been  some 
foundation  for  such  positive  impressions  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Spaulding,  and 
many  others. 

I  think  Mrs.  Eichbaum  who  was  clerk  in 
the  post  office,  in  Pittsburg,  from  1812  to 
1816,  gives  the  key  to  the  matter.  A  young 
man  by  the  name  of  Lambdin  was  in  Mr. 
Patterson's  employ  and  became  his  partner 
in  1818.  She  states  thatRigdon  and  Lamb- 
din  were  very  intimate  and  that  Mr.  Engle 
foreman  of  Patterson's  printing  office  com- 
plained thatRigdon  was  loafing  around  the 
office  all  the  time;  that  Rigdon  was  work- 
ing in  a  tannery  at  the  time.  The  explana- 
tion then  is  that  Rigdon  was  intimate  with 
J^ambdin  one  of  the  leading  employees  of 
Patterson,  while  he  was  working  in  a 
tannery  in  Pittsburg,  and  from  this  intim- 
acy, persons  supposed  that  he  was  in 
Patterson's  employ;  especially  when  he 
was  around  the  office  so  much.  Rigdon  was 
then  a  young  man,  noted  for  his  gift  of  gab, 
and  fondness  for  discussion,  especially  on 
religious  topics.  We  are  now  ready  to 
prove  that  Rigdon  came  in  contact  with  the 
Spaulding  manuscript.  Joseph  Miller  of 
Amity.  Pa.,  who  took  care  of  Spaulding  in 
his  last  illness,  testifies  :  "  My  recollection 
is  that  Spaulding  left  a  transcript  of  the 
manuscript  with  Patterson  for  publication. 
The  publication  was  delayed  until  Spaul- 
ding could  write  a  preface.  In  the  mean 
time  the  manuscript  was  spirited  away,  and 
could  not  be  found.  Spaulding  told  me 
that  Sidney  Rigdon  had  taken  it  or 
•was  suspected  of  taking  it.  I  recol- 
lect distinctly  that  Rigdon's  name  was 
mentioned  in  connection  with  it."  Mr. 
McKee  says  that  Rigdon  was  mentioned  to 
him  by  Spaulding  as  the  employee  of  Pat- 
terson. Dr.  Dodd  who  took  care  oi  Spaul- 
ding in  his  last  illness  declared  that 
Spaulding's  manuscript  had  been  trans- 
formed into  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  that 
Rigdon  was  the  one  who  did  it.  He  made 
this  statement  years  before  Howe's  book 
appeared,  the  first  public  statement  of  such 
a  theory.  He  did  it  on  account  of  what  he 
had  heard  of  the  Spaulding  manuscript,  and 
what  Spaulding  had  told  him.  Mrs.  Spaul- 
ding positively  declares  that  Rigdon  was 
connected  with  Patterson's  office,  when  the 
manuscript  was  there,  and  that  he  copied 
it.  That  the  manuscript  was  a  subject  of 
much  curiosity  and  interest  in  the  office. 
That  it  was  well  known  that  he  had  a  copy 
of  it. 

We  can  now  collate  the  evidence.  Rig- 
don was  intimate  with  J.ambdin  a  prom- 
inent employee  in  the  office.  He  Inafed 


about  the  office  so  much  that  Mr.  Engle 
the  foreman  complained  of  it.  His  fond- 
ness for  religious  discussion  and  love  of  the 
strange  and  marvelous,  caused  him  to  take 
a  deep  interest  in  the  Spaulding  manu- 
script. It  was  just  what  would  interest  such 
a  cast  of  mind  as  his.  The  manuscript  was 
missed.  He  was  blamed  with  spiriting  it 
away.  Mrs.  Spauldmg  thinks  he  copied  it. 
She,  in  the  course  of  her  husband's  last  ill- 
ness did  not  learn  all  the  facts,  or  did  not 
remember  clearly.  She  was  mistaken  in 
regard  to  his  copying  it  and  that  it  was  re- 
turned, as  Miller,  McKee  and  Dr.  Dodds 
statements,  in  regard  to  Spauldings  own 
statements  show.  We  have  now  traced  the 
manuscript  that  Spaulding  prepared  for 
publication  into  Rigdon's  hands.  The 
statement  of  his  friends  that  he  staid  on 
the  farm  till  he  went  to  Pittsburg,  in  1822, 
they  contradict  themselves.  It  does  not 
harmonize  with  Rigdon's  character.  Mrs, 
Eichbaum's  statement  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  Rigdon  went  to  work  in  a  tannery, 
when  he  quit  preaching  in  1824.  He  had 
learned  the  trade  in  1812  to  1816.  That  Rig- 
don was  in  Pittsburg,  when  Spaulding, 
manuscript  was  in  Patterson's  office  learn- 
ing the  tanner's  trade.  He  was  intimate 
with  Lambdin,  an  employee  of  Patterson. 
He  was  about  the  office  so  much  that  En- 
gles  complained  that  he  was  always  hang- 
ing about.  He  was  just  such  a  person  as 
would  be  excited  over  Spaulding's  manu- 
script. He  took  great  interest  in  it.  That 
was  what  made  him  hang  around  the  office. 
The  manuscript  was  stolen,  and  Spaulding 
said  that  Rigdon  was  suspected  of  taking  it. 

Rigdon  joined  the  Baptist  church  on 
Piney  Fork  of  Peters  creek  May  31,  1817. 
He  studied  theology  during  the  years  1818- 
19  with  a  Mr.  Clark  a  Baptist  Preacher  of 
Beaver,  county,  Pa.  He  was  licensed  to 
preach  by  the  Connequessing  Baptist 
church  in  1819.  He  went  to  Warren  Trum- 
bull  county  Ohio,  where  his  uncle  was  a 
prominent  member  of  the  Baptist  church 
and  joined  that  church,  March,  4th,  1820. 
He  was  ordained  to  preach  as  a  regular 
Baptist  Preacher  by  that  church,  April,  1st, 
1820.  He  preached  for  that  church  and  other 
churches  in  that  vicinity  during  the  years 
1820  and  21.  He  married  Phebe  Brooks  in 
Warren,  in  1820.  In  January  1822  he  moved 
to  Pittsburg  and  was  made  Pastor  of  the 
Fir&t  Baptist  church  Jan.  28th  1822.  He 
embraced  many  of  the  teachings  of  Camp- 
bell and  Scott.  His  church  and  Scott's 
often  met  together  in  worship.  He  was  ar- 
raigned for  such  doctrinal  errors  and  ex- 
cluded Oct.  11,  1823.  He  preached  for  his 
adherents  in  the  court  house  till  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1824.  Then  for  two  years  did  no 
regular  preaching.  He  says  he  studied  the 
Biole  and  worked  in  a  tannery. 

We  will  now  prove  that  he  had  the 
Spaulding  manuscript  in  his  possession  at 
this  time.  Rev.  John  Winter  M.  D.  who 
was  a  member  of  Rigdon's  congregation 
when  he  was  pastor  of  the  First  Baptist 
church,  and  very  intimate  with  him  testi- 
fies; that  Kigdon  in  his  presence  in  hU 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


45 


house  took  out  of  a  desk  a  manuscript  and 
remarked  that  a  "Presbyterian  minister 
Spaulding  whose  health  had  failed  brought 
this  to  a  printer  to  see  if  it  would  pay  to 
publish  it.  It  is  a  romance  of  the  Bible — 
and  he  got  it  from  the  printer  to  read  as  a 
curiosity."  Here  we  have  clear  proof  that 
Rigdon  had  Spauldin°f's  manuscript  in  kis 
possession  in  1823.  In  the  winter  of  1826 
Rigdon  moved  to  Bainbridge,  Geauga,  coun- 
ty Ohio.  Soon  after  he  was  visited  by  his 
niece  now  Mrs.  A.  Dunlap  of  Warren,  Ohio. 
She  testifies : 

"That  in  her  presence  her  uncle  went  Into  his  bed- 
room and  took  from  a  trunk  which  he  kept  carefully 
locked,  a  manuscript  and  come  back  seated  himself  by 
the  fire  and  be^an  to  read.  His  wife  came  into  the 
room  and  exclaimed:  "What you  area  studying  that 
thing  again?  I  mean  to  burn  th»t  paper.''  Rigdon 
replied :  "  No  indeed  you  will  not.  This  will  be  a  great 
thine:  someday."  When  he  was  reading  this  manu- 
script he  was  so  completely  occupied  that  he  seemed 
entirely  unconscious  of  anything  around  him." 

We  have  now  proved  that  Rigdon  had 
the  Spaulding  manuscript  in  his  possession , 
and  that  he  expected  to  make  some  great 
thing  out  of  it  and  spent  much  time  over 
it. 

In  June  1826  Rigdon  was  invited  to  preach 
the  funeral  sermon  of  Warner  Goodall  of 
Mentor  Ohio,  and  so  pleased  the  congrega- 
tion, that  they  chose  him  their  preacher, 
and  he  became  a  Disciple  Preacher.  He  was 
now  33  years  old.  He  had  barely  what  was 
a  common  school  education  of  those  days, 
and  was  never  a  student  or  reader,  except 
of  the  visionary  and  mysterious.  He  had 
a  wonderful  command  of  language,  an  ex- 
travagant imagination  and  a  marvelous 
power  of  word  painting.  He  excelled  in 
declamation  and  in  a  kind  of  pulpit  power, 
that  arouses  revival  excitement.  He  never 
was  regarded  as  a  reasoner,  or  a  man  of 
profound  thonght.  He  was  relied  on  as  a 
revivalist  rather  than  as  a  regular  preacher. 
His  favorite  theme  was  the  millennium,  on 
which  he  was  fond  of  declaiming,  and 
entertained  the  ideas  now  found  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  He  was  always 
talking  of  some  great  time,  coming,  some 
great  thing  going  to  happen.  He  brought 
with  him  many  of  his  Baptist  ideas,  and 
never  accepted  all  Disciple  teaching.  His 
power  in  revivals  and  his  love  of  revival 
excitement,  inclined  him  to  the  idea  then 
popular  in  all  churches,  except  the  Disciples 
of  direct  and  immediate  or  miraculous 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  His  extrava- 
gancies and  eccentricities  gave  constant 
annoyance  to  the  Disciples,  who  overlooked 
them  on  account  of  his  power  as  a  revivalist. 
They  would  often  say:  "  Oh  well  it  is 
Rigdon.  It  is  one  of  Rigdon's  oddities." 
His  imagination  and  love  of  the  marvelous 
lead  him  constantly  into  exaggerations,  that 
often  were  absolute  falsehoods.  Those  who 
who  watched  him  closely  were  soon  con- 
vinced, that  he  lacked  logical  mental  power 
and  moral  stamina,  and  was  unreliable  in 
his  statements,  and  wanting  in  moral  prin- 
ciple. He  was  a  vain  showy  pulpit  orator 
but  never  was  a  trusted  preacher  axrong 
the  Disciples. 
We  propose  now  to  show  that  Rigdon  knew 


of  the  appearance  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
before  it  appeared,  and  knew  of  and  de- 
scribed its  contents.  Adamson  Bently 
Rigdon's  brother-in-law  and  one  of  the 
most  reliable  men  that  Ohio  has  ever 
known,  declares  in  the  Millennial  Har- 
binger of  1844,  page  39  :  "I  know  that  Sid- 
ney Ki/rdon  told  me  as  much  as  two  years 
before  the  Mormon  Book  made  its  appear- 
ance, or  had  been  heard  of  by  me,  that 
there  was  a  book  coming  out,  the  manuscript 
of  which  was  engraved  on  gold  plates." 
Alexander  Campbell  whose  word  not  even 
sectarian  hatred  ever  dared  to  impeach, 
clinches  the  matter  by  adding  his  testi- 
mony: 

"The  conversation  alluded  to  In  Brother  Bontly's 
letter,  was  in  my  presence,  as  well  as  his.  My  recol- 
lection of  it  led  me,  some  two  or  thiee  years  ago,  10 
interrogate  Bro.  Bently  concerning  his  recoiled  ions  of 
it.  They  accorded  with  mine  in  every  particular,  ex- 
cept in  regard  to  the  yBiir  in  which  it  occurred.  He 
placed  it  in  the  surnnx;r  of  1K27.  I  placed  it  in  the 
summer  of  1826.  Rigdon,  at  the  sarco  time,  observed 
that  on  the  plates  dug  UD  in  New  York,  there  was  an 
account,  not  only  of  the  aborigines  of  this  continent, 
but  it  was  stated  also  that  the  Christian  religion  had 
been  preached  on  this  continent,  during  the  first  cen- 
tury just  as  we  were  then  preaching  it  on  the  Western 
Reserve." 

That  clinches  the  matter. 

We  will  now  introduce  Darwin  At  water 
of  Mantua,  who  testifies : 

"Sidney  Rigdon  preached  for  us  when  the  Mormoa 
defection  eai he  on  us.  and  notwithstanding  his  extra- 
ordinary wild  freaks  he  was  held  in  high  repute  by 
many.  For  a  few  months  before  his  pretended  conver- 
sion to  Mormonism,  it  was  noted  that  his  wild  extrav- 
agant propensities  had  been  more  marked.  That  he 
knewbef  jrehandof  the  coming  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
is  tome  certain,  from  what  lie  had  said  during  the  first 
of  his  visits  to  my  father's  some  years  before  (in  182''), 
He  gave  a  wonderful  description  of  the  mounds  and 
other  antiquities  found  in  some  parts  of  America,  and 
said  that  they  must  have  been  made  by  the  aborigines. 
He  said  there  was  a  book  to  be  published  containing 
an  account  of  these  things.  He  spoke  of  them  in  his 
eloquent  enthusiastic  style  as  being  a  thing  most  ex- 
trHordin.-iry.  Though  a  youth  1  took  him  to  task  for 
expending  so  much  enthusiasm  on  srch  a  subject  in- 
stead of  the  things  of  the  gospel.  In  all  my  intercourse 
with  him  wfterwards  he  i  ever  spoke  of  the  antiquities 
or  of  the  wonderful  book  that  should  give  an  account 
of  them  till  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  real'y  published. 
He  must  have  thought  that  I  was  not  the  man  to  reveal 
to." 

That  is  true.  Darwin  Atwater  was  no*, 
Parley  P.  Pratt  was.  He  was  the  right  man 
for  Rigdon's  schemes. 

Rigdon  made  a  convert  of  Pratt  then 
teaching  school  in  Lorairi  county  Ohio. 
Pratt  began  to  preach  for  the  Discipleg. 
Rigdon  let  him  into  his  scheme  and  Pratt 
entered  heartily  into  it.  We  will  now  prova 
that  Rigdon  was  away  from  home,  engaged 
in  getting  out  his  manuscript,  that  he  told 
his  wife  would  be  a  great  thing  some  day. 
Zebulon  Rudolpho  Mrs  Garfield's  father  tes- 
tifies : 

"  During  the  winter  previous  to  the  appearance  of  the 
Book  ot  Mormon,  Rigdon  was  In  the  habit  of  spei  ding 
weeks  away  'rom  houie,  going  no  one  knew  whither. 
He  often  appeared  preoccupied  and  he  would  indulge 
in  dreamy  visionary  talks,  which  puzzled  those  who 
listened.  When  the  Book  of  olormon  appeared  and 
Rigdon  joined  in  the  advocacy  of  the  new  religion  the 
suspicion  was  at  once  aroused  that  he  was  one  of  th» 
framers  of  the  new  doctHne,  and  that  probably  he  was 
not  ignorant  of  the  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon." 

John  Rudolph,   brother  to  Z.  Rudolph 
says: 
"For  two  years  before  the   Book  of  Mormon   &p- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


peared,  Rigdon's  sermons  were  full  of  declarations  and 
prophecies  that  the  age  of  miracles  would  be  restored, 
and  more  complete  revelations,  than  those  in  the  Bible, 
would  be  given.  When  the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared, 
all  who  heard  him  were  satisfied  that  he  referred  to  it.1' 

Alrnon  B.  Green,  well  known  in  Northern 
Ohio,  says : 

"In  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Mahonlng  Associa- 
tion held  in  Austimown  in  August,  1830,  about  two 
months  before  Sidney  Rigdon's  professed  conversion 
to  Mormonism,  Rigdon  preached  Saturday  afternoon. 
He  had  much  to  say  about  a  full  and  complete  restora- 
tion of  the  ancient  gospel.  He  spoke  in  his  glowing 
style  of  what  the  Disciples  had  accomplished  but  con- 
tended that  we  had  not  accomplished  a  complete  resto- 
ration of  Apostolic  Christianity.  He  contended  such 
restoration  must  include  community  of  goods — holding 
all  in  common  stock,  and  a  restoration  of  the  spiritual 
gifts  of  the  apostolic  age.  He  promised  that  although 
we  had  not  come  up  to  the  apostolic  plan  in  fall  yet  as 
we  were  Improving  God  would  soon  give  us  a  new  and 
fuller  revelation  of  his  will.  After  the  Book  of  Mormon 
had  been  read  by  many  who  heard  Rigdon  on  that  oc- 
casion they  were  perfectly  satisfied  that  Rigdon  knew 
al!  about  that  book  when  he  preached  that  discourse. 
Rigdon's  sermon  was  most  thoroughly  refuted  by  Bro. 
Campbell,  which  very  much  offended  Rigdoii." 

Scores  of  others  who  were  present  have 
made  similar  statements  hundreds  of  times. 
Eri  M.  Dille  testifies : 

"In  the  autumn  of  1830  Sidney  lUgdon  held  a  meet- 
ing in  the  Baptist  meeting-house  on  Euclid  Creek.  I 
was  sick  and  did  not  attend  the  meeting,  but  my  father 
repeatedly  remarked  while  it  was  in  progress  that  he 
was  afraid  that  Rigdon  was  about  to  leave  the  Disci- 
ples for  he  was  continually  telling  of  what  marvelous 
things  he  had  seen  in  the  heavens  and  of  wonderful 
things  about  to  happen  and  his  talks  indicated  that  he 
would  leave  the  Disciples. 

We  will  now  prove  that  Rigdon  came  in 
contact  with  Smith  in  1827-28-29.  while 
Smith  was  getting  out  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
Pomeroy  Tucker,  a  native  of  Palmyra,  New 
York,  an  intimate  acquaintance  of  Impos- 
tor Joe,  who  read  much  of  the  proofs  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  says : 

"  A  mysterious  stranger  now  appears  at  Smith's  and 
holds  intercourse  with  the  famed  money  digger  For 
a  considerable  time  no  Intimation  of  the  name  or  pur- 
pose of  this  stranger  transpired  to  the  public,  not  even 
to  Smith's  nearest  neighbors.  It  was  observed  by  some 
that  his  visits  were  frequently  repeated.  The  sequel 
of  the  intimacies  of  this  stranger  and  the  money  dig- 
ger, will  sufficiently  appear  hereafter.  There  was 
great  consternation  when  the  118  pages  of  manuscript 
were  stolen  from  Harris  for  it  seems  to  have  been  im- 
possible, for  some  unaccountable  reason,  to  retranslate 
the  stolen  portion.  The  reappearance  of  this  myste- 
rijus  stranger  at  Smith's  at  this  juncture  was  again  the 
subject  of  inquiry  and  conjecture  by  observers,  from 
whom  was  withheld  all  explanation*  of  his  identity 
and  purpose.  When  the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared 
Rigdon  was  an  early  convert  Up  totLls  time  he  had 
played  his  part  In  the  back-ground  and  his  occasional 
visits  to  Smith's  had  been  observed  by  the  inhabitants 
as  those  of  the  mysterious  stranger.  It  had  been  his 
policy  to  remain  in  concealment  until  all  things  were 
in  readiness  for  blowing  the  trumpet  of  the  new  gospel. 
He  now  came  to  the  front  as  the  first  regular  preacher 
in  Palmyra." 

Mrs.  Eaton,  wife  of  Horace  Eaton  D.  D. 
for  thirty-two  years  a  resident  of  Palmyra 
says: 

"Early  In  the  summer  of  1827  a  mysterious  stranger 
seeks  admission  to  Joe  Smith's  cabin.  The  conferences 
of  the  two  are  most  private.  This  person  whose  coming 
immediately  precede')  a  new  departure  in  the  faith  was 
Sidney  Rigdon  a  backslidden  clergyman,  then  a  Camp- 
bellite  preacher  In  Mentor,  Ohio. 

J.  H.  McCauley,  in  his  history  of  Franklin 
County,  Pennsylvania,  slates : 

"As  a  matter  too  well  known  to  need  argument  that 
Joseph  Smith,  the  founder  of  Mormonism  and  Sidney 
Rigdon  were  acquaintances  for  a  considerable  time 
before  Mormonism  was  first  heard  of." 

Abel  Chase,  a  near  neighbor  of  the 
Sniith'e,  testifies ; 


••I  saw  Ris-don  at  Smith's  at  different  times  with  con- 
siderable intervals  between  thorn." 

This  disproves  the  statement  that  Rigdon 
never  was  at  Smith's  but  once  and  that 
after  the  hook  appeared.  He  was  there 
several  times  and  some  visits  must  have 
been  before  the  book  appeared. 

Lorenzo  Saunders,  another  near  neighbor, 
testifies : 

"I  saw  Rigdon  at  Smith's  several  times,  and  the  first 
visit  was  more  than  two  years  before  the  Book  ap- 
peared." 

We  have  now  brought  Rigdon  the  second 
character  in  the  origination  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  in  contact  with  the  Imposter  Joe 
Smith  the  third  and  last  character  in  orig- 
inating the  fraud.  This  acquaintance  could 
have  been  brought  about  in  two  ways.  Parly 
Pratt  the  school  teacher  in  Lorain  county 
Ohio,  that  Rigdon  converted,  had  been  a 
peddler  in  Central  New  York,  and  was  ac- 
quainted with  every  noted  character  in  it. 
When  Rigdon  let  him  into  the  secret  of  his 
scheme,  he  could  have  suggested  to  Rigdon 
that  the  seer  and  famous  money  seeker  of 
Manchester.with  his  wonderful  peep-stone, 
would  be  the  very  person  to  introduce  his 
fraud  to  the  world,  as  a  revelation  by  mira- 
cle. Or  it  could  have  occurred  in  another 
way.  The  work  of  Smith  and  his  gang  in 
digging  over  a  large  scope  of  country  in 
southern  New  York,  and  northern  Penn- 
sylvania, had  been  extensively  commented 
on  by  the  press.  Rigdon  could  have  learned 
of  this  wonderful  seeker  after  treasure,  and 
his  wonderful  peep-stone  through  the  press, 
and  it  occurred  to  him  that  here  was  the 
one  to  give  his  stolen  manuscript  to  the 
world  as  a  new  revelation,  by  miracle,  trans- 
lating pretended  plates  with  his  peep-stone. 
We  are  now  ready  for  a  sketch  of  Imposter 
Joe. 

Imposter  Joe  was  born  Dec.  23,  1805,  in 
Sharon,  Windsor  county  Vermont.  The 
minister  employed  by  the  Home  Missionary 
Society,  to  labor  in  Vermont  1809-10-11-12-13 
says,  in  his  autobiography,  that  in  1812  a 
religious  imposter  created  an  excitement  in 
the  neighborhood  of  the  Smith's.  He  taught 
that  miraculous  spiritual  gifts  could  and 
should  be  enjoyed  now,  and  claimed  to  ex- 
ercise them.  He  claimed  to  be  a  prophet, 
and  then  a  Messiah,  Christ  in  his  second 
advent.  Among  the  most  active  of  his  fol- 
lowers was  Impostet  Joe's  father  and 
mother,  especially  his  mother.  She  proph- 
esied, at  the  time,  that  Joe,  then  seven 
years  old,  would  be  a  prophet,  and  give  to 
the  world  a  new  religion.  Joe  was  raised 
with  this  idea  before  him.  All  the  family 
were  taught  and  believed  it.  Joe's  father 
used  to  speak  of  Joe  as  the  "  genus,"  as  he 
termed  it,  of  the  family.  This  accounts  for 
Joe's  peculiar  gravity  when  but  a  child, 
and  as  a  youth.  He  was  to  be  a  prophet, 
and  he  must  not  act  as  other  children  and 
boys  did.  In  1815  the  Smiths  moved  to 
Palmyra  N.  Y.  and  in  1813  they  squatted 
on  an  unoccupied  piece  of  land,  belonging 
to  minors  and  lived  there  until  they  went 
to  Ohio  in  1830.  Soon  after  coming  to  Pal- 
myra, in  a  revival  excitement,  Joe  showed 


THE  BKADEN  AND  KELLER  DEBATE. 


47 


some  interest  In  religious  matters,  and 
joined  the  class  of  probationers  on  proba- 
tion, and  was  soon  left  off  "  on  suspicion" 
as  the  Yankee  expressed  a  similar  experi- 
ence of  his  own.  This  is  all  there  is  of  'he 
long  story  that  Imposter  Joe  wrote  in  1843, 
twenty  three  years  afterwards,  of  his 
wonderful  vision,  of  his  going  to  the  Meth- 
odist preacher  with  queries,  that  would  be 
in  character,  had  the  querist  been  a  person 
of  mature  mind,  well  versed  in  the  contro- 
versies of  the  age,  but  were  utterly  out  of 
character  in  the  mouth  of  an  ignorant 
illiterate  boy  of  fifteen,  that  was  remark- 
able chiefly  for  his  power  of  exaggeration 
and  falsehood,  and  not  for  thought.  The 
ideas  that  he  said  he  had  then,  he  never 
dreamed  of  -until  he  learned  them  from 
Sidney  Rigdon,  years  afterwards. 

In  Sep.  1822,  while  digging  a  well  for 
Willard  Chase,  Imposter  Joe's  father  found 
a  singularly  shaped  stone  of  cloudy  quartz, 
strangely  resembling  a  child's  foot.  Impos- 
ter Joe,  who  was  loafing  around  was  very 
much  interested  in  the  stone  and  finally  stole 
it  from  Mr.  Chase's  children.  This  stone  is 
the  Urim  and  Thummim  of  Mormonism. 
Rigdon  had  stolen  the  "Book  of  Mormon." 
Now  Imposter  Joe  steals  the  Urim  and 
Thummim,  with  which  he  pretended  to 


translate  Ridgons  stolen  manuscript.  In 
Sept.  1823  Imposter  Joe  worked  for  W.  H. 
Sabin,  in  Onandago  Valley  N.  Y.  Here  he 
learned  of  the  existence  of  the  Spaulding 
manuscript  then  at  Mr.  Sabins  in  the  care 
of  Martha  Spaulding,  Solomon  Spauld'ng's 
daughter.  During  the  year  1823-24-25-26- 
27,  Imposter  Joe  was  engaged  in  loafing 
around,  strolling  over  the  country,  pretend- 
ing to  find  water  by  witching  fur  it  with  a 
witch-hazle  rod,  and  pretending  to  find  lost 
property,  buried  treasurers,  and  minerals, 
by  means  of  the  stone  he  had  stolen  from 
Mr.  Chase's  children.  He  had,  a  part  of  the 
time,  with  him,  a  gang  of  idle  superstitious 
men,  who  dug  holes  over  a  large  scope  of 
country,  in  several  counties  in  southern  New 
York,  and  northern  Pennsylvania.  His 
knavish  tricks,  and  frauds,  had  attracted  to 
him  great  notoriety.  His  proceedings  with 
a  gang  of  dupes  were  published  and  com- 
mented on  in  several  of  the  papers  of  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania.  By  this  means 
Rigdon  who  was  still  looking  around  for 
some  means  to  publish  his  stolen  manu- 
script heard  of  the  Seer  of  Manchester,  and 
his  wonderful  peep-stone.  It  occurred  to 
him  that  here  was  the  means  of  getting  his 
new  revelation — his  "Golden  Bible"  before 
the  world. 


MR.  KELLEY'S   FIFTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :  —  This  evening  I  shall  intro- 
duce first,  some  of  the  unmistakable  corrob- 
orative evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  as  found  contained  in  the  re- 
ports and  records  of  eminent  travelers, 
explorers,  scientists,  historians  and  archae- 
olegists,  of  the  world. 

The  Spaulding  Romance  no  doubt  will 
still  b&  the  means  of  entertaining  you  upon 
the  part  of  the  negative,  as  it  seems  to  be 
a  much  easier  task  for  him  to  spin  out  that 
yarn,  than  to  attempt  to  answer  the  argu- 
ments of  the  affirmative.  I  will  promise 
you  one  thing  however,  that  is,  that  the 
Spaulding  tale  shall  not  go  unanswered,  if 
the  arguments  of  the  affirmative  are.  I 
will  show  you  before  the  close  of  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question,  if  the  negative 
holds  put  the  time  agreed  upon,  that,  that 
thing  is  so  rotten  and  deceitful  in  concep- 
tion, so  false  and  malicious  in  publication, 
BO  absurd  and  ridiculous  in  belief,  that  you 
shall  in  your  hearts  feel  ashamed  that  you 
ever  entertained  the  thought,  that  there 
m!g-hfc  be  something  in  it.  In  the  mean- 
time carefully  follow  him-  he  is  a  good 
rc.wder  and  hns  the  story  well  rehearsed. 


But  to  the  facts  :  In  1827  and  1828,  when 
the  greater  part  of  tJ  e  Book  of  Mormon 
was  translated  and  put,  in  manuscript,  and 
in  the  year,  1829,  whe.i  it  was  put  in  the 
hands  of  the  printer,  very  little  was  known 
as  to  the  peoples,  ancient  races  and  civili- 
zation, of  the  American  continent.  Taken 
in  the  light  of  what  is  known  of  these  an- 
cient peoples  to-day  with  the  later  devel- 
opments, there  was  comparatively  nothing 
known  at  that  time.  There  were  then  spec- 
ulations and  theories  afloat  as  to  the  prob- 
abilities of  an  older  people  than  the  Indians 
in  a  few  cases,  brought  out  by  the  finding 
of  a  few  relics  of  rude  implements  and  or- 
naments together  with  some  bones,  &e.> 
unaccounted  for,  and  in  a  few  instances 
speculation  as  to  the  cause  of  certain 
mounds  of  earth,  whether  such  showed  » 
higher  state  of  civilization  and  was  the  re- 
mains of  an  older  people  than  was  then  to 
be  found  among  the  savages  of  the  forest. 
But  there  wr.s  no  one  who  for  a  moment 
thought  that  the  country  had  been  inhab- 
ited by  a  people  whose  state  of  civilization 
and  enlightenment  had  equalled,  if  not 
surpassed,  that  of  Europe  itself.  IP  the 
arts  and  the  sciences ;  in  agriculture  and 


4S 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


mining;  In  masonry  and  architecture;  In 
painting  arid  sculpture;  in  engineering  and 
mecnanical  skill ,  in  physics  and  medicine 
and  in  mathematics  and  astronomy.  Not 
only  this,  but  to  that  time  no  one  specula- 
ted in  all  the  domain  of  history,  science  or 
literature,  that  the  continent  had  been  suc- 
cessively inhabited  by  different  peoples  of 
a  high  state  of  civilization,  who  in  turn  had 
become  extinct  or  dwindled  into  barbarism. 
It  was  also  at  that  tvme  a  speculative  be- 
lief that  the  continent  was  settled  from  the 
north,  the  people  gradually  making  fo  the 
south  when  it  was  settled,  and  that  proba- 
bly some  of  the  rude  tribes  which  inhab- 
ited northeast  Asia  had  at  some  period 
wandered  across  Behring's  strait  and  grad- 
ually made  their  way  southward  upon  the 
continent.  It  was  a.^o  speculated  that 
perhaps  at  some  time  some  of  the  daring 
and  hardy  seamen  of  maritime  Europe  had 
discovered  the  country  and  formed  small 
settlements  which  were  afterwards  de- 
stroyed by  the  more  powerful  nations,  for 
the  relics  discovered  up  to  1829,  were  only 
in  certain  places,  which  would  only  indi- 
cate the  landing  of  a  ship's  crew  at  the 
point ;  and  again,  that  the  Chinese  had 
been  cast  upon  its  shores  in  some  accidental 
manner  and  the  Indians  were  descended 
from  them  ;  and  later  by  some,  that  the 
"Ten  tribes  of  Israel,"  that  were  carried 
away  captive  from  Samaria  by  Shalman- 
esar,  King  of  Assyria^  may  have  made 
their  way  to  the  continent  and  after  a 
time  fallen  into  idolatry  and  a  state  of 
savagery.  But  in  turn  every  one  of  these 
theories  have  given  way  as  the  light  of 
discovery  and  research  has  been  thrown 
upon  them,  and  now  none  find  a  support 
as  demonstrable  facts.  At  the  time  be- 
fore referred  to  however,  there  was  pub- 
lished to  the  world  by  a  young  man  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  a  record  claiming 
to  give  a  positive  and  correct  account  of  the 
peoples  who  had  formerly  inhabited  this 
continent.  The  places  from  whence  they 
came  ;  the  different  times  of  their  coming  ; 
the  countries  of  first  settlement ;  the  varied 
states  of  civilization ;  their  knowledge  of 
the  arts,  sciences,  agriculture,  languages 
and  literature.  The  manner  of  settlement, 
leading  from  south  to  north.  The  extent 
of  settlement  and  the  magnitude  of  the 
population.  Giving^  a  general  account  of 
their  hundreds  of  cities  and  the  glory  and 
grandeur  of  them  ;  of  the  industries,  pur- 
suits and  character  of  the  people,  ana  their 
final  overthrow.  And  singular  as  it  may 
seem,  every  statement  with  reference  to 
these  matters  is  in  harmony  with  the  facts 
which  have  been  developed  by  the  later 
researches  of  science.  And  upon  nearly 
every  one  of  its  marvelous  revelations  as 
to  these  people,  the  result  of  the  work  of 
the  archaeologist  has  been  to  furnish  cor- 
roborative evidence  of  their  truthfulness. 
Notwithstanding  the  fairness  and  candor 
in  which  the  statements  of  this  record  have 
been  published  to  the  world,  from  the  day 
it  met  the  public  eye,  self-constituted  lead- 
ers, theologians,  and  paltry  politicians  have 


taken  it  upon  themselves  to  Inform  the 
public  mind  of  their  views  of  its  teachings, 
always  careful,  however,  to,  if  possible, 
keep  the  record  itself  in  the  background 
Ifest  it  reveal  their  perversions,  until  at  this 
time,  I  think  I  may  safely  assert  and  keep 
•vithin  the  bounds  of  truth,  that  there  is 
not  published  in  America,  a  single  Ency- 
clopedia, Gazetteer,  Geography,  History, 
History  of  the  Religious  Denominations, 
Review  01  Expose  which  has  spoken  of  the 
work  and  undertaken  to  give  its  state- 
ments, unless  such  publication  was  mado 
by  the  friends  of  this  record,  that  does  not 
contain  a  false,  garbled  and  perverted  ac- 
count of  what  it  contains  and  teaches.  I 
ask  in  the  broad  world  of  books  every- 
where, for  one.  Why  is  this  my  audience? 
If  the  book  is  a  bad  one  will  it  not  be  suffi- 
cient to  prove  it  so  by  giving  its  statements 
without  perversion?  Has  it  come  to  this! 
That  men  are  compelled  to  resort  to  false- 
hood and  trickery  in  order  to  overcome  a  ud 
put  down  an  evil  thing?  In  the  apostle**' 
time  the  injunction  was,  "  to  be  not  over- 
come of  evil,  and  overcome  evil  with  good." 
But  perhaps  this  with  the  other  good  things 
of  the  New  Testament  was  confined  to  the 
apostles,  and  "to  those  upon  whom  they 
laid  their  hands."  The  truth  is  my  friends 
that  there  is  method  in  this  madness. 
SomeDody  is  just  afraid  that  if  the  light  is 
turned  on  they  may  be  discovered  to  be 
sitting  in  darkness.  It  may  be  said  as  of 
olden  time:  "Every  one  that  doeth  evil 
hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the 
light,  lest  his  deeds  should  be  reproved." 
''But  he  that  doeth  truth  cometh  to  the 
light  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest 
that  they  are  wrought  in  God." 

It  was  stated  by  my  opponent  last  night 
that  Sidney  Rigdon  said  in  1823,  that  a  book 
would  be  published  someday,  "and  be  a 
big  thing,  "And, "says  he,  "it  is  a  big 
thing." 

Well  it  seems  to  me  he  makes  Rigdon  out 
a  prophet,  and  a  true  one  too,  rather  early 
in  the  career.  According  to  this  Rigdon 
was  a  prophet  while  he  belonged  to  the 
Baptists,  and  after  he  was  with  the  Disci- 
pies  ;  and  I  make  my  guess  right  here  that 
if  he  had  not  found  out  they  were  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Bible  and  left  them  he 
would  be  accounted  such  with  them  to  this 
day ;  yes,  and  the  grandest  and  ablest  of 
them  all ;  making  no  exception  to  Camp- 
bell, or  Scott  or  Barton  W.  Stone.  It  is 
much  like  the  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  wno 
while  he  was  a  Pharisee  was  hail  fellow 
well  met.  But  when  he  became  converted 
to  the  full  light  of  the  gospel,  and  after- 
wards preached  good  to  the  people  and  told 
them  how  many  bad  things  he  did  when  a 
Pharisee.  "They  cried  out,  Away  with 
such  a  fellow,  he  ought  not  to  be  permitted 
to  live  upon  the  earth." 

But  to  return  to  the  "  big  thing."  This 
work  my  friends  will  prove  to  be  a  big 
thing  to  this  age  yet ;  not  to  the  destruction 
of  Christianity,  but  to  its  full  establishment. 
Why !  do  you  not  know  that  I  can  go  side 
by  side  with  the  scientist  and  the  skep- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


49 


tic  into  the  National  Museum  of  our  country 
and  corroborate  that  work  by  the  collec- 
tions, from  the  rude  arrow-head  of  the  In- 
dian to  the  cities  of  the  clitf-dwellers  which 
are  there  set  out  in  full  representation, 
simply  by  turning1  to  the  wonderful  history 
in  this  book  ?  And  not  only  in  these  but  in 
the  fossil  and  other  collections  from  the 
time  you  strike  the  bones  of  the  mastodon 
till  you  come  to  those  of  the  common  do- 
mestic animals.  It  is  truly  an  ensign  set 
up  bearing  the  most  indisputable  tidings 
that  Jesus  was  the  .Son  of  God  and  that  God 
is,  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
and  revealed  himself  to  man  upon  this  as 
upon  the  other  continent;  and  this  fact 
alone  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
question,  "Of  what  use  is  the  book?" 
Since  it  is  brought  to  light  in  an  age  of  the 
world  when  whole  multitudes  disbelieve  in 
the  existence  of  God,  and  millions  whose 
fear  toward  him  are  taught  by  the  precepts 
of  men,  believe  in  him  only  as  a  God  of  the 
past,  but  not  now  having  any  especial 
thing  to  do  with  the  human  family,  the 
use  of  it  is  as  apparent  as  any  known  thing 
in  the  universe.  Opening  this  record  (the 
Book  of  Mormon),  I  hurriedly  cite  some  of 
its  pages  upon  the  civilization  of  the  con- 
tinent. 

First  of  the  civilization  which  came  out 
from  Babel  four  thousand  years  ago.  Page 
620  of  the  record  : 

"And  the  whole  face  of  the  land  northward,  [that  Is 
from  the  straits,  from  what  we  terra  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  northward],  was  covered  with  inhabitants; 
and  they  were  exceeding  industrious,  and  they  did 
buy  and  sell  and  traffic  one  with  another  that  they 
might  get  gain.  And  they  did  work  in  all  manner  of 
ore,  and  they  did  make  gold,  and  silver,  and  iron,  and 
brass,  und  all  manner  of  metals;  and  they  did  dig  It 
out  of  the  earth:  wherefore  they  did  cast  up  mighty 
heaps  of  earth  to  get  ore,  of  gold  and  of  silver,  and  of 
iron  and  of  copper.  And  they  did  work  all  manner  of 
fine  work.  And  they  did  have  silks,  and  fine  twined 
linen;  and  they  did  work  all  manner  of  cloth  that  they 
might  clothe  themselves.  And  they  did  make  all 
manner  of  tools  to  till  the  earth,  both  to  plough  and  to 
sow,  and  to  reap  and  to  hoe,  and  also  to  thrash.  And 
they  did  make  »11  manner  of  tools  with  which  thoy  did 
work  their  beasts.  And  they  did  make  all  manner  cf 
weapons  of  war.  And  they  did  work  all  manner  of 
work  <if  exceeding  curious  workmanship.  And  never 
could  be  a  people  more  blest  than  they,  and  more  pros- 
pered by  the  hand  of  the  Lord." 

Then  I  refer  you  to  page  517  for  another 
description : 

"And  in  the  space  of  sixty  and  two  years,"  (that  is 
from  the  time  that  Emer  one  of  their  kings  began  to 
reign),  "they  had  become  exceeding  strong,  insomuch 
that  they  become  exceeding  rich,  having  all  manner 
of  fruit,  and  of  grain,  and  of  silks,  and  of  fine  linen, 
and  of  gold,  and  of  silver,  and  of  precious  things,  and 
also  all  manner  of  cattle,  of  oxen,  and  cows,  and  of 
hheep.  and  of  swine,  and  of  goats,  and  also  many  other 
kinds  of  animals  which  were  useful  for  ihr  food  of 
man;  and  they  also  had  horses,  and  asses,  and  there 
were  elephants,  and  cnreloms,  andcumoms,  all  of 
which  were  useful  unto  man,  and  more  especially  the 
elephants,  and  cureloms,  andcumoms." 

Citing  you  now  to  page  43,  I  refer  you  to 
the  situation  of  the  country  as  it  appeared 
and  was  found  to  exist  when  the  second 
people  came  to  the  continent — Those  who 
came  out  from  the  land  of  Jerusalem  six 
hundred  years  before  the  birth  of  the 
Savior : 

"And  it  came  to  pass  that  we  did  find  upon  the  land 
of  promise,  as  we  journeyed  in  the  wilderness,  that 
there  were  beasts  In  the  forests  of  every  kind,  both  the 


cow,  and  the  ox,  and  the  ass,  and  the  horse  and  the 
goat,  and  the  wild  goat,  and  all  manner  of  wild  ani- 
mals which  were  for  the  use  of  men.  And  we  did  find 
all  manner  of  ore.  both  of  gold,  and  of  silver,  and  of 
copper." 

On  page  394  we  have  a  further  descrip- 
tion, and  also  of  the  habits  of  the  people: 

"And  behold,  there  was  all  mannerof  gold  in  both  these 
lands,  and  of  silver,  and  of  precious  ore  of  every  kind; 
and  there  were  also  curious  workmen,  who  did  work 
all  kinds  of  ore,  and  did  refine  it;  and  thus  they  did 
become  rich.  They  d.d  raise  grain  in  abundance, 
both  in  the  north  and  in  the  south.  And  they  did 
flourish  exceedingly  both  in  the  north  and  in  the 
south.  And  they  did  multiply  and  wax  exceeding 
strong  in  the  land.  And  they  did  raise  many  flocks 
and  herds,  yen,  many  fallings.  Behold,  their  women 
did  toil  and  spin,  and  did  make  all  manner  of  cloth,  of 
fine  twined  linen  and  cloth  of  every  kind." 

Leaving  the  description  of  the  country 
and  the  people  as  set  out  in  the  book,  I 
next  refer  you  to  their  society  and  moral 
and  religious  instruction.  The  book  shows 
that  the  people  were  taught  by  Jesus  when 
he  manifested  himself  to  many  upon  this 
continent.  Jesus  said  unto  them  page  456  : 

"And  as  I  have  prayed  among  you,  even  so  shall  ye 
pray  in  my  church,  among  my  people  who  do  repent, 
and  are  baptized  in  my  name.  Behold  I  am  the  light; 
I  have  set  an  example  for  you." 

"Pray  In  your  families  unto  the  Father,  always  in  my 
name,  that  your  wives  and  children  may  be  blessed. 
And  behold,  ye  shall  meet  together  oft,  and  ye  shall 
not  forbid  any  man  from  coming  unto  you  when  ve 
shall  meet  together,  but  suffer  them  that  they  irm. 
come  unto  you,  and  forbid  them  not;  but  ye  shall  pray 
for  them,  and  shall  not  cast  them  out;  and  if  it  so  be 
that  they  come  unto  you  oft,  ye  shall  pray  for  them 
unto  the  Father,  in  my  name;  therefore  hold  up  your 
light  that  it  may  shine  unto  the  world.  Behold  I  am 
the  light  which  ye  shall  hold  up — that  which  ye  have 
seen  me  do.  Behold  ye  see  that  1  have  prayed  unto 
the  Father,  and  ye  all  have  witnessed;  and  ye  see 
that  I  have  commanded  that  none  of  you  should  go 
away,  but  rather  have  commanded  that  ye  should 
come  unto  me,  that  ye  may  feel  and  see ;  even  so  shall 
ye  do  unto  the  world  ;  arid  whosoever  breaketh  this 
'commandment,  suff'ereth  himself  to  be  led  into  temp- 
tation." 

I  might  cite  its  pages  to  show  you  with 
regard  to  the  hundreds  of  cities  that  it  re- 
fers to,  and  magnificent  ones  too,  located 
upon  different  parts  of  the  continent;  and 
especially  upon  the  part  of  the  continent 
known  as  Central  America,  and  of  which  I 
shall  refer  hereafter  ;  and  also  that  part  of 
the  continent  known  now  as  Peru  and  Bo- 
livia. But  will  proceed  at  the  present  upon 
another  line. 

Having  given  you  a  glance  into  the  his- 
tory as  published  in  the  years  1829  and  1830, 
I  will  briefly  enumerate  some  of  the  prom- 
inent things  mentioned  in  the  work  which 
have  since  been  verified,  and  then  intro- 
duce the  evidences  from  Archaeologists. 

1.  The  book  states  that  three  civilizations 
have  existed,  flourished  and  decayed,  upon 
•parts  of  the  continent,  and  one  on  nearly 
every  part. 

2.  One  of  these,  first  settled  north  of  the 
Isthmus,  or  "  narrow  neck  of  land  "  as  de- 
scribed by  them,  and  inhabited  first  what 
is  now  called  Central  America,  and  after- 
wards the  more  northern  parts  of  the  con- 
tinent. 

3.  The  second  settled  on  the  east  coast  of 
South    America    and   first    inhabited  that 
country  occupying  the  territory  that  is  now 
known  as  Peru  and  Bolivia,  and  from  thence 
spread  over  the  whole  continent. 


60 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


4.  The  third  landed  on  or  near  the  coast 
of  what  is  now  called  Yucatan  in  Central 
America. 

5.  The  last  two  of  these  civilizations  were 
cotemporaneous,  and  that  the/  after  a  time 
united  and  were  known  as  one  people. 

6.  That   the    habitation    of   each    began 
about  590  ^ears  before  the  Christian  Era, 
and  the  joint  habitation  ceased  about  four 
centuries  after,  except  as  to  the  estranged 
tribes. 

7.  That  the  occupancy  of  the  first  or  origi- 
nal inhabitants  ceased  at  least  a  thousand 
years  before  these. 

8.  That  the  last  prophets  understood  the 
Egyptian  language  in  part  and  wrote  in  a 
brief  and  phonetic  system  of  their  language. 

9.  That  they   also  wrote   in  other    lan- 
guages as  did  also  the  earliest  of  the  peo- 
ples.   That  the  civilization  so  far  as  to  the 
occupancy  of  the  country  were  in  each  in- 
stance from  south  to  north  originally. 

10.  That  they  builded  many  great  and 
fine  cities  in  the  northern  parts  of  South 
America  ;  also,  on  and  near  the  narrow  neck 
of  land,  and  north  in  the  country  of  Cen- 
tral America,  wnere  the  cities  were  the 
finest,  largest,  and  most  numerous.    They 
also  builded  farther  north  upon  all  parts 
of  the  continent. 

11.  That  the  ancestry  of  the  last  two  peo- 
ples was  Israelitish,  but  not  the  lost  "Ten 
Tribes." 

12.  That  there  was  early  brought  to  the 
continent  by  the  first  people,  the  common 
domestic  animals  and  many  others.    (Here 
I  will  also  state  that  the  fossil  remains  of 
many  of  these  were  not  discovered  or  known 
to  the  world  to  have  existed  upon  this  con- 
tinent till  a  very  late  date,  some  as  late  as 
the  year  1860.) 

13.  That  many  of  their  cities  were  walled 
with   solid    masonry    and    made    immense 
fortresses  and  that  they  had  engines  of  war, 
and  the  battle  ax,  the  cimeter,  the  sword 
and  many  other    kinds    of   instruments    of 
war. 

14.  That  classes  had  fortified  cities  in  the 
mountains  far  up,  so  much   so  that  it  was 
impossible  to  dislodge  them,  and   they  re- 
tired and  lived  there,  except  to  sally  forth 
and  prey  upon  the  people  in  the  land  or  the 
agricultural  portions. 

15.  That    the   structure    and  manner  of 
building  of  their  temples  was  upon  a  grand 
and  magnificent  plan  and  they  were  decor- 
ated with  much  expense  and  many  curious 
and  unique  ornaments. 

16.  The  enlightened  and  civilized  part  of 
the  people  were  peaceably  inclined  and  not. 
warlike,  and  highly  cultivated   in  morals 
and  religion.    This  is  the  history  as  given 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

I  will  now  turn  to  my  evidences  with  re- 
gard to  this,  as  ascertained  and  published 
by  explorers  since  the  publication  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  citing  you  the  first  vol- 
ume of  John  L.  Stephen's  explorations  in 
Central  America,  Chiapas  and  Yucatan, 
page  131.  Mr.  Stephens  here  sets  forth  the 
first  reference  made  to  the  distinguished 
city  of  Copan.  as  being  made  by  Francisco  de 


Fuentes  in  1700;  but  he  only  mentions  it 
casually,  and  in  his  description  he  repre- 
sented it  as  containing  figures  of  men  like- 
wise represented  in  Spanish  habits,  with 
hose,  and  rufHe  around  the  neck,  sword, 
cap  and  short  cloak.  .But  that  history  ha» 
never  been  published  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. And  little  known  of  it  in  any  part 
of  the  world,  and  it  contained  no  true  or 
full  description  of  this  ancient  city. 

"From  this  time,"  says  the  author,  "there  is  no  ac- 
count of  these  ruins  until  the  visit  of  Col.  Galindo  in 
1836,  before  referred  to,  who  examined  them  under  i 
commission  from  the  Central  American  Government, 
and  whose  communications  on  the  subject  were  i  ub- 
Hshed  in  the  proceedings  ot  the  Royal  Geographical 
Society  of  Pans,  and  in  the  Literary  Gazette  of  Lon- 
don." This  was  in  the  year  1834. 

I  might  remark  here  that  there  is  in  the 
books  reference  made  to,  a  Spanish  gentle- 
man, and  also  an  explorer,  who  examined 
some  of  these  ruins,  and  left  his  manuscript 
in  the  hands  of  the  government,  and  which 
was  published  in  London  in  the  year  1822. 
But  the  publication  in  English  of  that  man- 
uscript was  confined  to  such  narrow  limits 
that  at  the  time  Stephens  wrote  this  work, 
(1841),  he  had  never  himself  seen  the  work, 
and  such  a  journal  as  the  London  Literary 
Gazette  had  never  heard  of  it  in  1834.  Mr. 
Stephens  continues  with  reference  to  the 
first  published  account  by  Col.  Galindo  in 
1834,  as  follows: 

"Not  being  an  artist  his  account  Is  necessarily  un- 
satisfactory and  imperfect,  but  it  is  not  exaggerated. 
Indeed  it  falls  short  of  the  marvelous  account  given 
by  Fuentes  one  hundred  and  thirty  five  years  before, 
and  makes  no  mention  of  the  movable  stone  hammock, 
with  the  sitting  figures  which  were  our  great  induce- 
ment to  visit  the  ruins.  No  plans  or  drawings  have 
ever  been  published,  nor  anything  that  can  five  e^en 
an  idea  of  that  valley  of  romance  and  wonder,  where 
as  has  been  remarked,  the  genii  who  attended  on  King 
Solomon  seem  to  have  been  the  artists." 

I  cite  you  next  to  the  account  on  page  142 
of  the  same  work,  where  the  author  in  de- 
scribing some  of  the  sculptured  art  of  this 
ancient  people  says : 

"Between  the  two  princ  Ipal  personages  is  a  remark- 
able cartoiu-he,  containing  two  hieroglyphics  well  pre- 
served, which  reminded  us  strongly  of  the  Egypdnn 
method  of  givingthe  names  of  the  kings  or  heroes  in 
whose  honor  monuments  were  erected.  The  head- 
dresses are  remarkable  for  their  curious  and  compli- 
cated form;  the  figures  have  all  breastplntes  and  one 
of  the  two  principal  characters  holds  in  his  hand  an 
Instrument,  which  may,  perhaps,  be  considered  a  scep- 
ter; each  of  the  others  holds  an  obje_ct  which  can  only 
be  a  subject  for  speculation  and  conjecture.  It  may  be 
a  weapon  of  war,  and  if  so,  it  is  the  only  thing  of  the 
kin  i  found  represented  In  Copan.  In  other  countries, 
battle-scenes,  warriors,  and  weapons  of  war  are  nmong 
the  most  prominent  subjects  of  sculpture ;  and  from 
the  entire  absence  of  them  here  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  ihe  people  were  not  warlike,  but  peaceable 
ane  easily  subdued." 

Do  not  forget  the  fact  in  the  examination 
that  the  only  account  pretended  to  have 
been  given  prior  to  1834  of  this  city,  that  of 
Fuentes  in  1700.  represented  these  relics  as 
adorned  in  Spanish  dress  and  costume,  and 
which  would  have  really  misled  a  reader 
of  the  true  character  of  the  ruins. 

On  page  155  of  the  same  work  we  have 
another  concise  description  of  their  sculp- 
ture: 

"  The  monument,  unhappily,  Is  fallen  and  broken. 
In  sculpture  it  is  the  same  with  the  beautiful  half- 
buried  monument  before  given,  and  I  repeat  It,  In 
equal  to  the  best  remains  of  Egyptian 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


61 


•rt  The  fallen  part  was  completely  bound  to  the  earth 
by  vines  and  creepers,  and  before  it  could  be  drawn  it 
was  necessary  to  unlace  them,  and  te  >r  the  fibres  out 
of  the  crevices.  The  paint  is  very  perfect,  and  ha* 
preserved  the  stone,  which  makes  it  more  to  be  re- 
gretted that  it  is  broken.  The  altar  is  buried  with  the 
top  barely  visible,  which,  by  examination  we  made 
out  to  represent  the  back  of  a  tortoise." 

Before  Mr.  Stephens  visited  Central 
America— and  in  a  manner  he  was  under 
the  auspices  of  the  government  of  the  Uni- 
ted States — he  had  visited  all  of  the  distin- 
guished countries  of  the  Eastern  continent, 
and  examined  their  cities,  and  had  written 
or  given  partial  accounts  of  them  •  He  was 
a  man  well  calculated  to  look  closely  into 
these  cities  of  Ancient  America  and  give  a 
reliable  account  and  description  of  them. 

I  next  refer  you  to  page  310  of  his  second 
volume.  In  his  description  of  the  temple 
of  Palenque  another  ruin  city  of  Central 
America  he  says : 

"It  stands  on  an  artificial  elevation  of  an  oblong 
form,  forty  feet  high,  three  hundred  and  ten  feet  in 
front  and  rear,  and  two  hundred  and  sixty  feet  on  each 
fide.  This  elevation  was  formerly  faced  with  stone, 
which  has  been  thrown  down  by  the  growth  of  trees, 
and  its  form  is  hardly  disiinguishable.  The  building 
stands  with  its  face  10  the  east,  and  measures  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-eight  feet  front  by  one  hundred  and 
eighty  feet  deep.  Its  height  is  not  more  than  twenty 
five  feet,  and  all  around  it  had  a  broad  projecting  cor- 
nice of  stone.  The  front  contained  fourteen  doorways, 
about  nine  feet  wide  each,  and  the  intervening  piers 
are  between  six  and  seven  feet  wide.  On  the  left  (in 
approaching  the  palace),  eight  of  the  piers  have  fallen 
down,  as  has  also  the  corner  on  the  right,  and  the  ter- 
race underneath  is  cumbered  with  the  ruins.  But  six 
piers  remain  entire,  and  the  rest  of  the  front  is  open. 
The  building  was  constructed  of  stone,  with  a  mortar 
of  lime  and  sand,  and  the  whole  front  was  covered 
with  stucco  and  painted.  The  piers  were  ornamented 
with  spirited  figures  in  bas-relief." 

On  page  346  we  have  this  further  descrip- 
tion : 

"The  principal  subject  of  this  tablet,"— that  is  one 
of  the  sculptured  figures  that  was  found  there,  called 
'the  tablet  of  the  cross,' — "is  the  cross  H  is  sur- 
rounded with  a  strange  bird,  and  loaded  with  inde- 
scribable ornaments.  The  two  figures  are  evidently 
those  of  important  personages.  They  are  well  drawn 
and  in  symmetry  of  proportion  are  perhaps  equal  to 
many  thai  are  carved  on  the  walls  of  the  ruined  tem- 
ples in  Egypt.  Their  costume  is  in  a  style  different 
from  any  hereto  ore  given,  and  the  folds  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  they  were  of  a  soft  and  pliable  texture 
like  cotton.  Both  are  looking  toward  the  cross,  and 
one  seems  in  the  act  of  making  an  offering,  perhaps  of 
a  child;  all  speculations  on  the  subject  are  of  course 
entitled  to  littlo  regard,  but  perhaps  it  would  not  be 
wrong  to  ascribe  to  these  personages  a  sacerdotal 
character.  Tin-  hieroglyphics  doubtless  explain  all. 
Near  them  arc  other  hieroglyphics,  which  reminded 
us  of  the  Egyptian  mode  for  the  recording  the  name, 
history,  office  or  character  of  the  persons  represented. 
This  tablet  of  the  cross  has  given  rise  to  more  learned 
•peculations  than  perhaps  any  others  found  at  Palen- 
que." 

On  page  356  we  have  this  statement  of 


the  author  in  the  conclusion  of  his  descrip- 
tion of  the  fallen  city  : 

"Here  were  the  remains  of  a  cultivated,  polished, 
and  peculiar  people,  who  had  passed  through  all  the 
stages  incident  to  the  rise  and  tall  of  nations;  reached 
their  golden  age,  and  perished  entirely  unknown." 

I  refer  you  next  to  the  late  work  of  Mr. 
John  T.  Short,  entitled,  The  North  Ameri- 
cans of  Antiquity.  On  page  387,  he  says  of 
Palenque  : 

"The  accompanying  cut  shows  Waldeck's  drawing 
(employed  by  Mr.  Bancroft).  Four  hundred  yards 
south  of  the  palace  stands  the  ruins  of  a  pyramid  and 
temple,  which  at  the  time  of  Dupaix's  and  of  Waideck'a 
visits  were  in  a  good  state  of  preservation,  but  quite 
dilapidated  when  seen  by  Charny.  The  temple  faces 
the  east,  and  on  the  western  wall  of  its  inner  apart- 
ment, it~e_lf  facing  the  eastern  light,  is  found,  (or  rather 
was.  for  it  has  now  entirely  disappeared),  the  most 
beautiful  specimen  of  stucco  relief  in  America.  Mr. 
Waldeck,  with  the  critical  insight  of  an  experienced 
artist  declares  it  'worthy  to  be  compared  to  the  most 
beautiful  works  of  the  age  of  Augustus.'  He  therefore 
named  the  temple  Beau  Relief.  The  above  cut  is  a  re- 
duction from  Waldeck's  drawing  used  in  Mr.  Bancroft's 
work,  and  is  very  accurate.  However,  the  peculiar 
beauty  of  Waldeck's  drawing  is  such  that  it  must  be 
seen  in  order  to  be  fully  appreciated.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  for  us  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
details  of  this  picture,  in  which  correctness  of  design 
and  greceful  outlines  predominate  to  such  an  extent 
that  we  may  safely  pronounce  the  beautiful  youth  who 
sits  enthroned  on  his  elaborate  and  artistic  throne,  the 
American  Apollo.  In  the  or  ginal  drawing  the  gra  e 
of  the  arms  and  wrists  is  truly  mHtchless,  and  the 
muscles  are  displayed  in  the  most  perfect  manner." 

I  hope  the  audience  will  not  overlook  the 
fact  of  the  high  order  of  art  here  set  out. 
This  is  the  latest  work  on  American  anti- 
.  quities,  bearing  the  date  of  1882.  Fifty 
three  years  after  the  Book  of  Mormon  was 
in  the  publisher's  hands,  and  yet  every 
line  of  these  grand  descriptions  are  in  per- 
fect keeping  with  the  high  attainments  of 
the  people  set  out  in  that  book  most  full 
and  complete. 

On  page  392  of  the  same  works  he  says : 

"The  stuccoed  roofs  and  piers  of  both  the  temples — 
Cross  and  Sun — rm\y  be  truly  pronounced  works  of  art 
of  ahigh  order.  On  the  former  Stephens  observed  busts 
and  heads  approaching  the  Greek  models  in  symmetry 
of  contour  and  perfectness  of  proportion.  Mr.  Waldeck 
has  preserved  in  his  magnificent  drawings  some  of 
these  figures,  which  are  certainly  sufficient  to  prove 
beyond  coniroversy  that  the  ancient  Palenqueans  were 
a  cultivated  and  artistic  people.  In  passing  to  Uxmal 
the  transition  is  from  delineations  of  the  human  figure, 
to  the  elegant  and  superabundant  exterior  ornamenta- 
tion of  edifices,  and  from  stucco  to  sione  as  the  material 
employed.  The  human  figure,  however,  when  it  is 
represented,  is  in  statuary  of  a  high  order, 

The  elegant  square  panels  of  grecqnes  and  frets 
which  compose  the  cornice  of  trteCasa  *el  Gobernador 
delineated  in  the  worlrs  of  Stephens.  Baldwin  and  Ban- 
crott,  are  a  marvel  of  beauty  which  must  excite  the 
admiration  of  the  most  indifferent  itudeut  of  the 
subject." 

(Time  expired). 


52 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.    BRADEN'S    FIFTH    SPEECH. 


MODERATORS,  LADTES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:  A  stock  argument  of  Mormons 
in  proof  of  the  inspiration  of  Imposter  Joe, 
and  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  true  and  a 
revelation,  is  stated,  "The  Book  of  Mormon 
based  on  the  idea  that  the  aborigines  of  is 
America  were  Israelites  Such  an  idea  was 
not  thought  of  or  advocated,  until  years 
after  the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared.  Some 
years  after  its  appearance,  scientific  research 
demonstrated  the  truth  of  the  basic  idea  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  Joseph  Smith  was 
an  unlearned  man  He  could  have  ob- 
tained such  an  idea  by  revelation,  and  in 
that  way  alone."  Young  men  who  were  as 
great  readers  as  Joseph  Smith  was,  have 
originated  as  startling  ideas,  without  inspir- 
ation. But  we  will  now  utterly  explode  this 
impudent  falsehood  I  have  here  two  books. 
One  is  "  The  Wonders  of  Nature  and  Provi- 
dence," written  by  Josiah  Priest,  and  copy- 
righted by  him  June  2d.  1824,  in  the  office 
of  R  R.Lansing,  Clerk  of  the  District  of 
Northern  New  York,  and  printed  m  Roch- 
ester in  1824  The  other  is  the  'Book  of  Mor- 
mon," copyrighted  by  Josepti  Smith  in  the 
office  of  the  same  R  R.  Lansing,  Cierk  of  tne 
same  district,  June  10th  18^9  printed  in  PaL- 
nayra,  twenty  miles  from  Rochester,  in  1830 

On  the  297th  page  of  "The  Wonders  of 
Nature  and  Providence,"  begins  an  article 
by  Mr.  Priest,  the  author,  in  which  he  ar- 

§ues  at,  great  length,  that  the  Indians  are 
escendants  of  the  Israelites.  Not  only  so, 
but,  he  quotes  from  Oavigero.  a  Catholic 
Missionary,  who  advocated  the  same  idea  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  From  Wm.  Pnnn, 
who  advocated  it  in  1788.  From  a  work 
published  by  Mr.  Adair  of  New  Jersey  who 
advocated  this  theory  in  1774.  From  a  ser- 
mon of  Dr  Jarvis  preached  before  the 
American  Historical  Society  in  I81i.  Jarv-.s 
quotes  from  books  of  Sewali,  Willard  and 
several  New  England  historians.  Priest 
quotes  further  from  Menasses  Ben  Israel, 
from  Dr.  Boudinot,  from  Dr  Edwards, 
from  Charlevoix,  Du  Pratz's  History  of 
Louisiana,  from  Lock  and  Escarootus  Dr 
Williams,  Governor  Hutchison,  Dr  Beatty 
McKenssie,  Maraez,  Col.  Smith's  History  of 
New  Jersey,  and  many  others.  Priest 
quotes  in  all  from  over  forty  writers,  of 
whom  over  twenty  were  Americans,  wno 
advocated  the  idea  that  the  aborigines  o* 
America  were  Israelites.  Most  of  tnese 
lived  and  wrote  before  Smith  was  born 
He  proves  that  it  was  the  almost  universal 
opinion  of  the  ministers  of  New  England 
and  the  Middle  States.  That  it  nad  been, 
from  the  time  of  Elliott  until  Priest's  own 
day.  Not  only  is  this  true,  but  Priest,  in  his 
argument,  quotes  nearly  all  of  the  passages 
of  scripture  quoted  by  Mormons  to  prove  the 
theory.  It  was  from  Priest's  book  that  Rig- 
don  and  the  Pratts  stole  their  arguments. 


We  show  then  that  a  book  copyrighted  in 
the  same  office  as  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
published  within  twenty  miles  of  Smith, 
circulated  all  over  New  York,  Western 
Pennsylvania  and  Eastern  Ohio,  years  be- 
fore the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared,  advo- 
cated the  idea  upon  which  it  is  based, 
and  urged  the  same  arguments  in  favor  of 
the  theory  that  Mormons  use  That  ends 
all  ciaim  that  Joe  Smith  must  have  ob- 
tained the  idea  by  revelation  It  shows 
that  not  only  did  Rigdon  steal  the  book, 
and  Joe  steal  the  peep  stone  to  translate  it, 
but  Mormons  stole  their  arguments  to  sus- 
tain it  from  Priest. 

We  will  now  take  up  my  opponent's  long 
array  of  prophecies.  I  might  let  them  pass 
untouched,  for  he  did  not  make  an  applica- 
tion of  them,  to  the  aborigines  of  America, 
that  was  worthy  of  notice  There  was  pub- 
lished in  London,  a  few  years  ago.  a  work 
by  a  Mohammedan  quoting  and  applying 
most  of  the  same  prophecies  to  tne  Ishmael- 
ites  to  the  Arabs  and  to  the  Koran.  I 
have  before  me  an  argument,  applying  the 
same  prophecies  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  race. 
Tne  stick  of  Ephraim  is  England,  of  Judah. 
America  There  13  an  organization,  with 
many  societies,  that  publishes  a  paper,  ad- 
vocating this  idea.  Scores  of  publications 
have  been  published,  and  they  make  a  much 
better  argument  than  Kelley  has  made. 
This  shows  the  absurdity  of  such  farfetchel 
perversions  of  the  poetic  language  of  proph- 
ecy If  we  admit  that  the  prophecies  ex- 
tend beyond  Palestine.  I  defy  my  opponent 
to  quote  one  prophecy  that  is  not  met  by 
tne  dispersion  of  Israelites  over  the  old  con- 
tinent. Israelites  were  scattered  into  Spam, 
Italy  and  the  islands  of  the  Mediterranean, 
in  to  Morocco.  Congo,  in  west  Africa,  and  over 
northern  Africa  into  Egypt  and  Ethiopia. 
Also  into  China,  India,  and  over  cent'  a)  and 
southern  and  western  Asia  .1  defy  my  op- 
ponent to  name  one  prophecy  that  extends 
beyond  these  countries  to  America  Now- 
here is  a  fair  challenge  and  test  Until  ne 
meets  this  hie  prophecies  arc  worthless. 
Isaiah.  XVI — 8  refers  tc  the  dispersion  of 
Moao  has  not  the  least  reference  tt  israei. 
Jeremian  XX — XXI  refers  to  dispersion  in 
Assyrian  Empire  Has  no  reference  r-o 
America.  So  of  every  quotation  from  Jere- 
miah 

Isaiah  xi— 11  The  16  verse  reads  "There 
shall  be  a  highway  for  the  remnant  of  his 
people,  which  shall  be  left,  from  Assyria 
like  it  was  to  Israel  in  the  day  he  came  up 
out  of  Egypt."  This  snows  that  it  refers 
to  Israelites  in  the  Assyrian  Empire,  and 
has  no  reference  to  America.  We  now  come 
to  the  pet  passage  of  Mormonism.  Kzok. 
xxxvii — the  sticks  of  Ephraim  and  Judah. 
The  Book  of  Mormon  declares  in  several 
places  the  Nepmtes  were  Mauassehitea. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


53 


and  the  people  of  ZarahemlaJudahites.  The 
stick  of  Ephraim  can  have  no  reference 
to  them.  Stick  does  noc  mean  a  book.  The 
stick  of  Judah  is  not  tne  Bible.  The  stick 
of  Ephraim  is  not  a  book.  Numbers,  xvii. 
Aaron  is  told  to  take  twelve  rods  or  sticks 
and  write  on  them  jusc  as  Ezekiel  is  told  to 
take  two  sticks  and  write  on  them.  Aaron 
wrote  the  name  ot  a  tribe  on  a  stick,  writ- 
ing  twelve  names,  using  twelve  sticks 
Ezekicl  wrote  the  name  of  a  tribe  or  a  na- 
tion on  a  stick — for  Juaah  represented  the 
southern  kingdom  and  Ephraim  the  north- 
ern kingdom — using  two  sticks  Gen  xhx 
the  rod.  staff,  sticK  or  scepter  of  Judah  is 
mentioned  We  read  of  the  rod,  staff  or 
fetick  cf  Aaroc  That  budded,  that  Moses 
used  Then  stick  is  a  symbol  of  power 
Wnat  the  prophet's  act  meant  was  that  the 
northern  kingdom  or  Ephraim,  and  the 
eouthern  kingdom  or  Judah  should  be 
united  again,  after  the  captivity,  as  they 
were  before  the  rebellion  of  Jereboam  In 
verse  23  the  prophet  declares  these  Israel- 
ite? were  scattered  in  captivity  fo:  s:n 
Lehi  and  Nepm  were  taken  by  the  Lord  from 
Jerusalem  because  they  were  so  good  to 
save  inem  The  prophecy  cannot  refer  to 
the  Nephites  Verses  26-2~  declares  the 
Lord  wiii  bring  Israel  or  Judah  from  tneir 
enemies  lands  "not  from  Amer.ca,  into  their 
own  iand  and  leave  none  in  tneii  enemies 
lands  We  m;gnt  examine  every  passage 
ana  show  that  they  have  no  reference  to 
America— car,  have  none  That  the  context 
confines  the  prophecy  tc  Asia,  North  Africa, 
and  tnat  it  refers  to  the  return,  under 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ,  but  this  is  sufficient. 
Isaiah  xxix — In  the  first  verse  the  prophecy 
Is  against  the  city  where  David  dwelt,  Je- 
rusalem In  the  seventh  verse  the  pro- 
phecy is  confined  to  Jerusalem  It  has  no 
reference  to  America.  It  speaks  of  the  ig- 
norance of  the  people  of  Judah,  their  fail- 
ure to  understand  the  prophets.  It  ha»  not 
a  gnost  ol  reierence  to  America  We  have 
tlr^wc  that  the  prophecies  need  no*;  extend 
beycn-1  tne  old  world.  We  defy  our  oppo- 
nent 10  name  one  tnat  need  extend  beyond 
tne  old  world.  We  have  proved  oy  the  con- 
text that  in  every  instance  tney  refer  to  the 
eid  world  and  usually  to  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  Palestine. 

We  are  now  ready  for  our  opponent  s« 
Holy  Ghost  speech,  a  speech  that  the  audi- 
ence will  hear  a  dozen  times  before  w«  are 
oone.  My  opponent  charge?  the  Disciplea 
w-tn  denying  tne  power  of  godliness,  the 
power  ol  God,  tne  power  of  the  Spirit  cf 
God.  The  Bible  declares  that  God  has  ac- 
complished all  things  i\y  his  Spint  and  by 
his  word,  in  these  is  all  power  that  God 
has  exerted  in  the  Universe.  There  are 
four  different  exercises  ot  power  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  mentioned  in  the  Bible  I. 
The  miraculous  power,  as  seen  in  inspira- 
tion, and  in  spiritual  gilts,  including  all 
miraculous  power  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 
This  the  world,  sinners,  cannot  receive. 
John  XIV:  Ib-i7.  "The  Father  will  give 
you  (the  apostles)  the  Comforter,  whom  the 
world  can  not  receive."  This  is  not  con- 


verting or  sanctifying  power,  for  the  sinner 
can  not  receive  it  to  convert  him  It  is  not 
sanctifying  power,  for  it  was  to  theapostles 
alone,  and  was  to  endow  them  with  mirac- 
ulous power  for  their  mission,  and  not  to 
sanctify  them.  It  did  not  descend  on  the 
apostles  at  Pentecost,  nor  was  it  imparted 
to  the  Samaritans  nor  to  John's  disciples 
at  Ephesus  to  convert  them,  for  all  these 
had  been  converted  before.  II.  Convert- 
ing power.  Roman  11.16:  "The  Gospel  is 
the  power  of  God  into  salvation  to  all  who 
believe."  John  IV.  36.  "The  words  which 
I  speak  untc  you,  they  are  spirit  and  life." 
Peter  1.5-  "We  are  kept  by  the  power  of 
God  through  faith  unto  salvation  ready  to 
be  revealed  in  the  last  time."  Ill  Indwel- 
ling power  Gal.  IV  •  6  :  "Because  ye  are 
sons,  God  has  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 
Son  into  your  hearts."  Because  by  the 
converting  power,  the  Gospel,  you  have 
been  made  sons.  God  has  sent  the  indwel- 
ling power  into  youi  hearts.  Eph  1:13- 
"Having  believed  in  Christ,  you  were 
sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise 
that  i?  the  earnest  of  ycur  inheritance  " 
John  XIV  :23  '  Jesus  said  'If  a  man  love 
me  he  will  keep  my  words  and  my  Father 
will  love  him  and  we  will  come  unto  him. 
and  make  our  abode  with  him  ' ''  Eph. 
111:15-17;  "I  pray  thai  you  be  strength- 
ened with  might  in  the  inner  man.  that 
Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts  through 
faith."  1  John  II  24.  "If  that  which 
you  have  heard  from  the  beginning  abide 
in  you  you  shall  continue  in  the  Sou 
and  the  Father."  John  III.:  23-24  "This 
is  the  commandment  of  God,  that  we 
should  believe  ou  the  name  of  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ,  aud  love  one  another,  atd.he 
that  keepetc  hi?  commandments,  dwelleth, 
in  God,  and  God  m  him'1  IV..  15-16: 
"  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God,  God  dwelletb  in  him,  and  he 
in  God!  God  is  Jove.  He  that  dwelleth  in 
love,  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him." 
Col  III.:  16.  ''Let  the  word  of  Christ 
dwell  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom." 

IV.  Resurrecting  power  Romans  viii  — 
"  If  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Christ 
from  the  dead,  dwell  in  you.  He  that  raised 
up  Christ  from  the  dead,  shall  also  quicken 
yout  mortal  bodies,  by  fhe  Spirit  of  Christ 
that  dwells  in  you  ''  When?  I  Thess.  14- 
15-16  '  ll  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and 
rose  again  even  so  those  also  who  sleep  in 
Jesud  w.r  God  bring  witn  him.  For  the 
Lord  himsell  shall  descend  from  heaven, 
wnn  a  shout,  and  witn  the  voice  of  the 
archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God,  and 
the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first."  So  also 
I  Cor.  xv.  51-52  We  have  proved  that  there 
are  four  manifestations  of  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  1  The  miraculous.  This  is  not 
converting  power,  tor  the  sinner  cannot  re- 
ceive it  to  convert  him.  The  apostles  and 
others  who  received  it  were  already  con- 
Virted.  II.  Converting  power.  This  is  the 
Gospel,  the  word  of  God,  which  begets, 
makes  alive,  converts.  III.  Indwelling 

Sjwer.    This  is   not  miraculous  power.     If 
by  and  through  faith,  belief,  by  the  wort 


54 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE, 


of  God.  God  and  his  Spirit  dwells  in  us, 
when  his  word  dwells  in  us,  and  we  live  it 
out  in  life.  IV.  Resurrecting  power  at  the 
general  judgment.  My  opponent,  with  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  all  of  Joe  Smith's  rev- 
elations, and  with  the  inspiration  of  a  Mor- 
mon Elder,  and  with  all  his  miraculous  illu- 
mination, is  so  grossly  ignorant  as  to  quote 
and  jumble  together  passages  in  which  these 
four  manifestations  aremeritioned;  and  is  as 
ignorant  as  a  dead  man  of  these  palpable 
distinctions.  The  miraculous  power  has 
ceased.  The  resurrecting  power  is  to  come. 
The  converting  and  indwelling  power  that 
are  exerted  through  the  truth  remain, 
and  we  believe  in  them  as  God's  word 
teaches,  and  not  as  Mormon  ignorance  and 
delusion  teach.  That  is  the  difference  be- 
tween us.  The  miraculous  power  was  not  a 
moral  influence.  It  was  given  to  wicked 
men,  and  even  to  animals,  to  Baalam's  ass. 
It  was  given  regardless  of  character.  It 
made  men  no  wiser  or  better,  when  it  had 
passed  away  from  them,  as  the  cases  of  Baa- 
lam,  his  ass,  Saul,  Jonah  and  Caiaphasshow. 
It  converted  no  one,  unless  it  be  Baalam's 
ass,  and  if  Mormons  belong  to  that  class, 
they  may  be  converted  by  it,  as  the  other 
ass  was ;  but  men  nover  we're  converted 
by  it. 

We  will  now  take  up  the  miraculous  pow- 
er of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  showed  that 
there  is  one  baptism  in  the  church,  in  \va- 
ter,  into  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit, 
it  is  a  memorial  and  symbolical  institution. 
There  can  be  no  other  baptism,  and  baptism 
in  the  Spirit  which  was  a  miracle,  ceased. 
My  opponent  can  not  touch  this.  We  said 
ih&t  Joel's  promise  was  to  all  flesh.  That 
Christ's  was  to  believers  alone.  That 
Peter's  was  only  to  believers  that  God  should 
call.  That  is  just  what  the  Bible  says.  We 
said  an  apostle  had  to  lay  hands  on  believ- 
ers, before  they  could  receive  the  miracu- 
lous power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  is 
just  what  the  VIII  chapter  of  Acts  declares. 
We  said  that  this  power  never  descended  to 
a  third  person.  He  has  not  found  a  case. 
We  said  that  there  is  a  more  excellent  way 
than  the  exercise  of  the  best  of  these  mi- 
raculous powers.  That  is  just  what  Paul 
says.  I  said  that  prophecying,  or  speaking 
by  inspiration,  miraculous  knowledge  or 
revelations,  speaking  with  tongues  or  mir- 
acles, signs  were  to  cease.  That  is  just 
w hat  Paul  says.  Kelley  asks  who  believes 
It?  All  who  believe  the  word  of  God  believe 
it.  I  said  that  the  partial  was  the  inspira- 
tion, the  revelation  imparted  by  this  mirac- 
ulous power.  It  was  but  a  fragment  of  the 
truth,  only  that  could  be  uttered  at  a  time. 
The  whole,  that  which  is  perfect,  is  the 
complete  word  of  God.  So  says  common 
sense.  So  says  the  word  of  God.  The  word  is 
perfect,  makes  Christians  perfect.  I  said 
that  as  one  of  the  members  of  the  compar- 
son,  the  imperfectwasastateofthechurch — 
the  state  when  these  gifts,  these  fragment- 
ary revelations  were  given  ;  the  other  mem- 
ber is  a  state  of  the  church,  when  the  word  of 
God  is  completed,  and  these  gifts;  these  frag- 


ments of  revelation  do  not  exist.  So  say 
Paul  and  common  sense.  He  quotes  "ask." 
I  inquire  how?  "Seek  "  task  how?  "Knock." 
I  ask  how?  In  accordance  with  God's  law 
and  word.  If  weask  for  miraculous  power, 
we  ask  contrary  to  God's  law.  "If  any  man 
lack  wisdom  let  him  ask."  How?  In  ac- 
cordance with  God's  word.  If  he  asks  for 
miraculous  power,  heasks  contrary  to  God'a 
law.  "We  will  manifest  ourselves  to  him." 
How?  Not  in  miraculous  power,  for  tor  that 
is  contrary  to  God's  word.  "We  will  abide 
in  him."  How?  In  miraculous  power?  No, 
for  that  has  ceased.  "If  two  or  three  are 
gathered  I  will  be  in  the  midst."  How?  In 
miraculous  power?  No,  for  that  has  ceased. 
"Witness  of  Spirit."  "The  Spirit  witnes- 
ses." How?  In  miracles?  No,  for  he  can- 
not utter  teaching  in  that  way.  In  his 
word,  the  word  of  truth,  the  only  way  one 
intelligence  can  testify  to  another  "Born  of 
Spirit."  How?  By  miraculous  power?  No, 
"He  that  believes  is  born  of  God."  "Chris- 
tian experience."  Must  it  include  miracu- 
lous power?  No,  for  that  has  ceased.  "Son 
of  God  will  dwell  in  our  hearts."  How? 
By  miracle?  No,  for  it  can  not  be  done  in 
that  way.  We  love  him  because  he  loved 
us.  By  learning  his  love  for  us.  "Holy 
Spirit  in  Christian."  How?  In  miraculous 
power?  No,  for  that  has  ceased.  When 
his  word  dwells  in  us  richly. 

"By  one  Spirit  are  we  baptized."  Yes, 
in  obedience  to  command  of  one  Spirit,  just 
we  are  begotten  of  Christ  in  obeying  his 
word.  My  opponent  does  not  know  enough 
to  know  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
being  baptized  in  the  Spirit,  and  being  bap- 
tized in  obedience  to  the  command  of  the 
Spirit.  He  says  I  deny  the  power  of  the 
Spirit.  No.  I  do  not  confound  the  four 
powers  of  the  Spirit  as  he  does.  I  separate 
them  as  the  word  of  God  does,  and  believe 
that  the  miraculous  power  has  ceased,  as 
the  word  of  God  teaches.  I  remove  God 
from  men  and  religion  now,  he  says.  No.  I 
believe  that  as  God  is  not  in  the  work  of 
bringing  animals  and  plants  into  being  by 
creation  now,  but  in  the  operation  of  nat- 
ural law,  so  he  is  not  in  men  and  religion 
now,  in  miracle,  but  in  the  operation  of  his 
word.  I  no  more  remove  God  from  religiou 
than  I  remove  him  from  nature.  I  believe 
he  is  present  in  a  higher  sense,  r.ud  in  a 
higher  way.  That  miracle  in  each  c^so  was 
only  preparatory  to  this  higher  operation 
of  divine  power.  My  opponent  assumes 
that  the  only  power  of  God  in  both  cases 
must  be  miraculous. 

How  are  apostles  and  prophets  ana  ihe 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  church  now?  Just  as 
Christ  is  present  in  the  church.  ]Te  is  not 
present  in  person,  OB  earth.  He  is  in  hea- 
ven. He  is  present  in  his  word  smd  law. 
The  apostles  are  present  in  their  words. 
The  Holy  Spirit  in  his  '.vord.  lie  blunders 
over  the  illustration  01'  the  constitutional 
convention.  The  people  vio<—  "ot  Ui  the 
convention  iu  person,  yet  jho  c«"isMrution 
says:  "  We,  the  people,  cr-'ain  uuis  r-jusMtu  • 
tion."  How  did  they  ordvu**  Tnrough 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


their  appointed  delegates.  God  in  person 
never  spoke  to  men  but  three  times.  He 
speaks  through  his  representatives.  God 
organized  the  church,  gave  its  constitution, 
the  New  Testament,  through  the  apostles, 
just  as  the  people  ordained  the  constitution 
and  government  through  their  representa- 
tives. The  apostle  says  "in  Christ's  stead- 
God  in  us— through  us."  They  teach  that 
they  were  God's  representatives.  His  blun- 
dering in  comparing  apostles  to  trees  is 
ridiculous.  Miraculous  power  created  the 
first  trees,  but  miraculous  power  was  no 
part  of  the  things  created.  The  apostles 
gave  the  constitution,  the  New  Testament, 
and  organized  the  church  under  it ;  but 
were  no  more  a  part  of  the  church  that 
they  organized  than  delegates  that  framed 
our  constitution  are  a  part  of  the  govern- 
ment they  organized  for  us.  Can  my  oppo- 
nent understand  that  ? 

We  want  to  call  our  opponent's  attention 
to  a  defect  in  his  stock  argument  on  Mark 
XVI  Let  us  read  it : 

"Afterwards  Jesus  appeared  unto  the  eleven  as  they 
(the  eleven)  sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  (the 
el'-ven)  becanse  they  (the  eleven)  believed  not.  He 
B»id  unto  them  (the  eleven),  'Go  yp  (tne  eleven)  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach,  etc.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptised  shall  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  condemned.  These  signs  shall  follow  them  (the 
eleven  again)  who  shall  believe,'  After  the  Lord  had 
spoken  unto  them  (the  eleven)  he  was  rereived  into 
heaven,  and  they  (the  eleven)  went  forth  preaching  the 
word,  the  Lord  working  with  them  (the  eleven)  con- 
firming the  word  (of  the  eleven)  with  signs  following." 

The  language  itself  extends  no  farther 
than  the  eleven.  They  were  the  ones  who 
were  to  preach.  Those  of  them  who  be- 
lieved and  went  forth  and  preached  should 
have  these  signs.  They  believed,  went 
forth  and  the  signs  followed  their  preach- 
ing. The  promise  does  not  necessarily  or 
logically  include  a  single  human  being  ex- 
cept the  eleven  who  were  upbraided  with 
unbelief,  and  who  were  to  preach,  and  were 
told  that  if  they  believed  and  preached  the 
signs  would  follow,  for  the  conclusion  says 
they  (the  eleven)  went  and  preached,  and 
the  signs  followed,  the  Lord  working  with 
them  (the  eleven).  We  will  now  resume 
our  history  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Rigdon  visited  Smith  in  the  spring  of 
1827.  The  two  concocted  their  scheme. 
Smith  was  to  pretend  to  have  a  "Golden 
Bible,"  a  book  made  of  plates' of  gold,  and 
pretend  to  translate  it  with  his  stolen  peep 
stone.  Spaulding  had  intended  to  pretend 
that  his  fabrication  had  been  found  in  a 
mound,  or  in  a  cave,  in  MS.  He  intended 
to  call  his  fraud  "The  Manuscript  Found." 
From  1818  to  1827  there  had  been  published 
accounts  of  finding  glyphs  or  metallic  plates, 
with  strange  characters  on  them,  in  mounds 
and  old  ruins  in  America.  This  suggested 
to  Rigdon  to  claim  that  his  fraud  had  been 
found  in  that  way.  A  hoax  started  in  1827, 
that  a  pile  of  such  plates,  called  •'  The  Gold- 
en Bible,"  had  been  found  in  Canada,  sug- 
gested the  name.  Rigdon  always  spoke  of 
his  fraud,  when  prophesying  of  its  appear- 
ance, as  a  "  Golden  Bible."  Smith,  how- 
ever, in  publishing  it,  changed  the  name  to 


the  "  Book  of  Mormon."  But  from  the  time 
the  Smiths  began  to  talk  of  Impostor  Joe's 
wonderful  revelations,  they  spoke  of  it  as  a 
"  Golden  Bible,"  and  did  so  until  about  the 
time  it  was  published. 

In  their  conferences  Imposter  Joe  told 
Rigdon  of  the  existence  of  the  other  Spaul- 
ding manuscripts,  then  atHartwicke,  New 
York,  in  the  house  of  Mrs.  Davidson,  for- 
mally Spaulding's  wife  and  widow.  The 
two  concocted  a  scheme  to  steal  them  a.nd 
thus  destroy  all  likelihood  of  detection  of 
the  theft  of  the  Spaulding  manuscript,  and 
exposure  of  the  fraud.  Smith  was  loafing 
in  Hartwicke,  in  the  summer  and  early  fall 
of  1827,  superintending  a  gang  of  men,  who 
were  trying  to  find  a  silver  mine,  on  the 
farm  of  Mr.  Stowell.  He  dug  some  wells 
in  the  town  also,  one  for  Stowell.  Septem- 
ber 21-22,  1827,  Smith  succeeded  in  stealing 
some  of  the  Mormon  manuscripts  of  Solo- 
mon Spaulding,  perhaps  Mormon  manu- 
script No  1,  the  one  Miss  Martha  Spaulding 
had  read  a  few  years  before  at  her  uncles 
when  the  trunk  was  in  her  care,  and  the 
first  one  Spaulding  wrote,  the  one  he  read 
to  most  of  the  witnesses  who  lived  in 
Conneaut,  also  Mormon  manuscript  No.  2, 
the  one  he  told  Smith  he  was  writing 
before  he  left  Conneaut,  the  one  of  which 
he  read  a  portion  to  J.  N.  Miller — the  one 
to  which  he  added  the  Zarahemla  portion. 
This  theft  of  the  manuscripts  is  the  true 
interpretation  of  Smith's  wonderful  visions 
of  September  21-22,  1827.  Smith's  neigh- 
Dors  say  that  he  never  mentioned  his  vis- 
ions of  1820  and  1823  while  in  the  state  of 
New  York,  and  his  visions  of  September 
1827.  as  first  told,  have  no  resemblance  to  his 
final  version.  The  version  quoted  by  Mor- 
mons was  written  in  1843  or  1844.  In  it  he 
fabricated  the  first  vision.  He  dressed  up 
his  hearing  of  the  existence  of  the  Spauld- 
ing manuscripts  into  his  second  vision  of 
September  1823.  He  dressed  up  his  theft  of 
the  manuscripts  from  Mr.  Davidson's  house 
into  his  third  vision  of  September  1827. 

Having  in  possession  they  supposed  all 
means  of  exposing  their  fraud  the  confed- 
erates now  went  to  work.  Smith  sat  behind 
a  blanket,  pretending  to  look  through  his 
ptolen  peep  stone,  which  was  placed  in  his 
hat.  He  claimed  that  God,  by  miracle, 
caused  one  word  at  a  time  to  appear  before 
his  vision.  He  announced  this  to  a  scribe 
who  sat  on  the  other  side  of  the  blanket, 
who  wrote  it,  and  then  it  disappeared,  and 
another  appeared.  Some  old  Mormons  say 
he  handed  out  sheets  of  manuscript  to  the 
scribe  who  copied  them.  What  he  actually 
did,  was  to  read  from  Rigdon'a  manuscript 
which  was  a  remodeling  of  Spaulding's 
Manuscript  No.  Ill,  which  he  had  concealed 
behind  the  curtain.  He  may  have  handed 
out  leaves  of  this  manuscript  at  times. 
Martin  Harris  was  his  first  chief  scribe.  It 
is  said  his  wife  and  his  brother-in-law  wrote 
a  little  each.  After  118  pages  had  been, 
copied  by  Harris  and  others,  Imposter  Joe 
gave  Harris  the  leaves  to  take  home  with 
him,  to  use  in  making  converts,  dupes  or 


66 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


confederates,  in  the  scheme.  Mrs.  Harris 
took  the  manuscript  and  burned  it,  one 
night  while  her  husband  was  asleep.  There 
was  dire  consternation,  and  Rigdou  appears 
on  the  stage.  I  want  to  call  the  reader's 
attention  to  a  singular  coincidence  here. 
Mr.  Lake,  Spaulding's  partner  testifies  that 
when  Spaulding  read  to  him  his  romance, 
Mormon  Manuscript  No.  1,  he  pointed  out 
an  inconsistency  in  the  story  o^Laban  which 
Spaulding  promised  to  correct,  butthesame 
blunder  is  in  tho  TRoolr  *£  Murinon.  That 


can  be  explained.  Spaulding  no  doubt  did 
correct  it  in  the  manuscript  prepared  for  the 
press,  but  when  Mrs.  Harris  destroyed  the 
118  pages,  Rigdon  had  to  restore  the  stolen 
portion  from  an  older  manuscript,  in  which 
the  blunder  had  not  been  corrected,  hence 
we  have  it  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  It  took 
Rigdon  soine  months  to  remodel  another 
manuscript  to  replace  the  stolen  portion, 
and  translation  did  not  begin  till  the  next 
June  or  the  three  I'd.  Joseph  says  it  began 
in  March. 


MR.  KELLEY'S   SIXTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :  While  I  am  on  the  subject  of 
American  antiquities,  I  shall  refer  you  to 
one  or  two  statements  made  by  my  oppo- 
nent with  reference  to  my  argument  of  last 
evening,  and  at  another  time  take  up  and 
answer  them  more  particularly. 

The  first  statement,  or  misstatement  ra- 
ther, was  that  Mormons  continually  claimed 
that  it  was  in  favor  of  their  book  because 
nobody  ever  claimed  that  the  aborigines  of 
this  continent  were  of  Israelitish  origin  be- 
fore its  publication.  I  had  just  stated  to 
you,  however,  in  my  argument  that  such 
claims  were  made  long  before.  Now,  why 
he  will  make  such  a  statement  as  that  be- 
fore you  when  I  had  stated  to  the  contrary, 
is  a  question  for  this  audience  to  answer. 
Is  that  the  way  to  argue  questions — to  get 
up  and  state  something  as  the  claims  of  an 
opponent's  people  which  they  do  not  nor 
never  did  believe,  and  say  that  that  is  their 
faith  or  position,  and  attack  it?  I  stated  to 
you  in  the  beginningof  this  part  of  my  argu- 
ment, fairly  and  fully,  thatone  of  the  theories 
and  speculations  long  prior  to  the  year  1830, 
with  regard  to  the  settlement  of  the  Ameri- 
can continent  was.  that  the  "lost  ten 
tribes,"  as  they  are  termed,  came  to  the 
continent;  and  that  is  what  is  referred  to  in 
Mr.  Priest's  work ;  but  it  is  not  what 
the  Book  of  Mormon  refers  to,  or  teaches. 
There  is  where  these  would-be  critics  and 
story  tellers  are  mistaken,  and  have  been 
all  the  time. 

Pursuing  now  my  argument  from  the  po- 
sition of  the  scientific  discoveries  as  left 
when  my  time  was  called,  I  cite  the  work 
of  J.  D.  Baldwin,  page  156,  entitled,  "An- 
cient America."  He  says : 

"  The  evidence  of  repeated  reconstructions  in  some  of 
the  cities  before  they  were  deserted  has  been  pointed 
out  by  explorers. 

At  Palenque  as  at  Mitla,  the  oldest  work  is  the  most 
artistic  and  admirable.  Over  this  feature  of  the  monu- 
ments and  the  manifest  signs  of  their  difference  in 
age,  the  attention  of  the  investigators  has  lingered  in 
speculation.  They  find  in  them  a  significance  which 


is  stated  as  follows  by  Brasseur  deBourbourg:  'Among 
the  edifices  forgotten  by  time  in  the  forests  of  Mexico 
and  Central  America,  we  find  architectural  character- 
istics so  different  from  each  other.  tha<  it  is  as  impos- 
sible to  attribute  them  all  to  the  same  people  as  to 
believe  they  were  all  built  at  the  same  epoch.  " 

Here  are  the  two  different  civilizations, 
both  of  a  high  order  and  cultivation.  That 
fact  was  never  known  or  published  to  the 
world  until  years  and  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
you  cannot  find  it  in  any  work  or  record 
prior  to  the  publication  of  that  book.  If 
you  can,  bring  your  record  here  and  read  it 
to  the  audience,  any  time.  I  come  here 
claiming  to  be  armed  with  facts,  and  will 
be  only  too  glad  to  have  them  weighed  and 
sifted  to  the  bottom.  But  Mr.  Baldwin 
proceeds : 

"In  this  view,  the  substructions  of  Mayapan,  some, 
of  those  at  Tulha.  and  a  «reat  part  of  those  at  Pa- 
lenque. are  among  the  older  remains.  These  are  not 
the  oldest  cities  whose  remains  are  still  visible,  but 
they  may  have  been  built,  in  part,  upon  the  founda- 
tions ol  cities  much  more  ancient" 

Remember  that  these  are  highly  civilized 
nations  that  he  is  writing  of,  not  a  barbar- 
ous nation  coming  upon  and  occupying  the 
land  where  a  civilized  nation  had  dwelt, 
but  one  highly  cultivated  and  enlightened 
nation  following  and  inhabiting  upon  the 
the  ruins  of  another.  He  says: 

"  No  well  considered  theory  of  these  ruins  can  avoid 
the  conclusion  that  most  of  them  are  very  ancient,  and. 
that  to  find  the  origin  of  the  civilization  they  repre- 
sent,  we  must  go  far  back  into  the  '  deeps  of  antiquity.' 
On  all  the  fields  of  desolation  where  they  exist,  every, 
thing  perishable  has  disappeared.  Wooden  lintels  are 
mentioned,  but  these  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  con- 
stituting an  exception  when  the  character  of  the  wood, 
and  the  circumstances  that  contributed  to  their  pre- 
servation are  considered.  Moreover,  wooden  lintels 
oeemtohave  been  peculiar  to  Yucatan,  where  many 
of  the  great  edifices  were  constructed  In  the  later 
times,  and  some  of  them  of  perishable  materials.  Ev- 
erywhere in  the  older  ruins,  nothing  remniiis  but  the 
artificial  mounds  and  foundations  of  earth.  the  stone, 
the  cement  the  stucco  hard  as  marble,  a  other  imper- 
ishable materials  used  by  the  builders.' 

Next  in  this  investigation  I  introduce  the 
work  entitled,  American  antiquities,  by 
Josiah  Priest.  The  book  that  I  have  was 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


published  in  1833,  and  the  earliest  publica- 
tion that  I  have  ever  seen  of  the  work  was 
made  in  the  year  1831.  If  Mr.  Braden  has 
an  earlier  copy  than  that,  as  he  claimed  be- 
fore this  audience,  I  will  examine  his  copy 
and  see  what  it  contains,  and  if  there  is 
anything  in  it  of  these  marvelous  works, 
which  the  Book  of  Mormon  describes,  I  will 
give  due  credit  to  it  on  to-morrow  evening. 
But  I  state  here  without  fear  of  contradic- 
tion that  it  does  not  contain  the  remarkable 
things  that  the  Book  of  M»rmon  sets  out, 
neither  as  to  the  habitation,  extent  of  civ- 
ilization, or  anything  else.  Neither  does 
the  book  I  have  before  me,  which  was 
published  in  1833.  But  there  is  an  account 
of  a  few  interesting  things  in  this.  Turn  to 
page  170,  an  account  and  description  of  ar- 
ticles obtained  from  a  mound  in  the  state  of 
Ohio. 

One,  "The  handle  either  of  a  small  sword  or  large 

"  knife,  made  of  an  elk's  horn  ;  around  the   end  where 

"  the  blade  had  been  inserted,  was    a  ferule  of  silver, 

"  which,  though  black,  was  not  injured  by  tinu-;  though 

"the  handle   showed   the  hole  where  the    blade  had 

"  been  inserted,    yet   no  iron  was  found,  but  an  oxide 

"  or  rust  remained,  of  similiarshapeand  size  "  "About 

"twenty    feet   to  the  north  of   it    was  another  skel- 

"  eton,  with  which   was  found  a  large   mirror,  about 

"throe  feet  in  length,    about  one  foot  and  a  half  in 

"width,    and  one  inch  and  a  half  in  thickness;    this 

"  was  of  isinglass,  (mica  membranacea).    On  this  minor 

"  was  a  plute   of  iron,  which  had  become   an    oxide  ; 

"but  before  it  was  disturbed  by  tru-  spade,   resembled 

"  a  plate  of  cast  iron.    The  mirror  answered   the   pur- 

'  pose    very   well   for  which  it  was   intended."    "The 

'  knife  or  sword  handle  was  sent    toPeale's  museum, 

'Philadelphia.''     "On  the  south  side  of  this  tumulus, 

'  and  not  fur  from  it,  was  a  semicircular  fosse,  or  dilch, 

'  six  feet  deep ;  which,  when  examined  at  the  bottom, 

'was  found  to  contain  a    great  quantity   of   human 

'  bones,  which  ii   is  believed,    were    the    remains   of 

'  those  who  had  b>  en  slain  in  some  great  and  dcstruc- 

'  live  battle  ;  because  they  belonged  to  persons  invar- 

'  iably  who  had   attained  their   full  size,  while  those 

'found    in  the   mound    adjoining,  were   of  nil  sizes, 

'  great  and  small,  but  laid  in  good  order,  while  those 

4  in  the  ditch  were  in  the  utmost  confusion." 

"The  mirror  was  a  monstrous  piece  of  isinglnss.alucid 

"mineral,  larger  than  we  recollect  to  have  ever   heard 

"  of  before,  and    used  among  the  rich  of  the  anoieuts, 

"for  lights  and    mirrors.     A  mirror  of  any    k  nd    in 

"  whicn  men  may  be  enabled  to  contemplate  their  own 

"form,   is  evidence  of  a  con-iderable   degree   ofad- 

"  vancement  in  the  arts,  if  not  even  luxury  itself." 

Passing  from  this  important  discovery  as 
published  by  Mr.  Priest,  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  work  of  Mr.  Stephens,  vol. 
1,  page  105.  Speaking  of  the  remains  which 
he  had  examined  in  his  explorations  of 
these  peoples'  cities  he  says  :  "Architect- 
ure, sculpture,  and  painting,  all  the  arts 
which  embellish  life,  had  flourished  in  this 
overgrown  forest  ;  orators,  warriors,  and 
statesmen,  beauty  ambition,  and  glory,  had 
lived  and  passed  away,  and  none  knew  that 
such  things  had  been  or  could  tell  of  their 
past  existence." 

Now  I  will  call  your  attention  to  some 
authorities  touching  the  nativity  of  this 
last  people  who  inhabited  Ancient  America, 
showing  their  common  origin  with  the  Asi- 
atic race  known  as  Hebrews.  First,  the 
work  of  Mr.  George Catlin,  published  by  H. 
G  Bohn,  York  Street,  Covent  Garden, 
London,  in  the  year  1857,  and  entitled  : 
"North  American  Indians,  vol.  2,  page  231: 

"The  North  American  In.dians  and  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  South  S«;%  Islands. 
speaking  some  two  o;  throe  huudj  <.,!  d'  ier- 


ent  languages  entirely  dissimilar,  may 
have  all  sprung  from  one  people." 

"ISRAELJTISH   EXTRACTION.'' 

He  proceeds  with  the  following  thoughts: 

"I  believe  with  many  others  that  the  North  Ameri- 
'  can  Indians  are  a  mixed  people. — That  they  have 
'  Jewish  blood  in  their  veins,  though  I  would  not 
'  assert  as  some  have  undertaken  to  prove,  that  they 
'are  Jews,  or  that  they  are  the  '  ten  lost  tribes'  of 
'  Israel.  From  the  character  and  composition  of  their 
'  heads,  I  am  compelled  to  look  upon  them  as  an  nmal- 
1  gam  race,  but  still  savages,  and  from  many  of  their 
'  customs,  which  seem  to  me  peculiarly  Jewish,  as  well 
'  as  from  the  character  of  their  heads,  I  am  forced  to 
'believe  that  some  part  of  those  ancient  tribes  who 
'  have  been  dispersed  by  Christians  in  so  many  ways, 
'  and  in  so  many  different  eras,  have  found  their  way 
'to  this  country  where  they  have  entered  among  the 
'native  stock." 

"  I  am  led  to  believe  this  from  the  very  many  customs 
'which  I  have  witnessed  among  tiiem'that  appear  to 
'  be  decidedly  Jewish,  and  many  of  ifiem  so  peculiarly 
'so  that  it  would  ,-eem  almost  impossible,  or  at  all 
'  events  exceedingly  improbable,  that  two  peoples  in  a 
'  state  of  nature  should  have  hit  upon  them  and  prac- 
'  ticed  them  exactly  alike." 

"  The  first  and  most  striking  fact  among  the  North 
'  American  Indians  that  refers  us  to  the  Jews  is  that 
1  of  their  wor>hiping  in  all  parts,  the  'Great  Spirit,' 
'  or  Jehovah,  as  the  Jews  were  ordered  to  do  by  divine 
'  precept,  instead  of  a  plurality  of  gods  as  ancient 
'  pagans  and  heathens  did,  and  the  idols  of  their  own 
''formation."  Ibid.,  page  232 

Mr.  Catlin  then  offers  "TWELVE  REA- 
SONS" why  he  accepted  the  idea  that  the 
American  Indians  are  descendants  from  the 
Israelites  in  some  way,  and,  as  his  investi- 
gations contain  many  facts  which  enter  into 
this  discussion,  I  offer  them  for  your  consid- 
eration. 

1.  "The  Jews  had  their  Sanctum  Sancto- 
rum, and  so  it  may  be  said  the  Indians  have, 
in  their  council,  or  medicine  houses,  which 
are  alwnys  held  as  sacred  places." 

2.  "As   the  Jews   had,   they  have   their 
High  Priests  and  their  Prophets." 

3.  "  Among  the  Indians  as  among  the  an- 
cient Hebrews,  the  women  are  not  allowed 
to  worship  with  the  men,  and  in  all  cases 
also,  they  eat  separately." 

.  4.  "The  Indians  everywhere  believe  that 
they  are  certainly  like  those  ancient  people, 
persecuted,  as  every  man's  hand  seems 
raised  against  them." 

5.  "  In  their  marriages,  the  Indians,  as 
did  the  ancient  Jews,  uniformly  buy  their 
wives   by  giving    presents,   and   in    many 
tribes,  very  closely  resemble  them  in  other 
forms  and  ceremonies  of  their  marriages." 

6.  "In  their  preparation  for  war,  and  in 
peacemaking,  they  are  strikingly  similar." 

7.  "  In  their  treatment  of  the  sick,  burial 
of  the  dead  and  mourning,    they   are  also 
similar." 

8.  "  In  their  bathing  and  ablutions,  at  all 
seasons  of  the  year,  as  a  part  of  their  r«  lig- 
ious    observances — having   seiaiale    |  hu-<.-s 
for  men  and   women  to  perform    these  inr- 
mersions — they  resemble  again." 

9.  "The  custom  among  the  women  of  ab- 
senting themselves  during  the  lunar  infiu- 
•    ces,  is  exactly  consonant   to   the    Mosaic 
law." 

Id.  "After  this  season  of  separation,  pu- 
rification in  running  water  and  anointing, 
precisely  in  accordance  with  the  Jewish 
command,  is  required  before  she  can  enter 
the  family  lodge." 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


11.  "Many  of  them  have  a  feast  closely 
resembling  the  annual  leasts  of  the  Jewish 
Passover,  and  amongst  others,  an  occasion 
much  like  the  Israelitish  feast  of  the  Tab- 
ernacle, which  lasted  eight  days  (when  his- 
tory tells  us  they  carried  bundles  of  willow 
bows  and  fasted  several  days  and  nights), 
making  sacrfices  of  the  first  fruits  and  best; 
of  everything,  closely   resembling  the  sin 
offering  and  peace  offering  of  the  Hebrews 
(See  this   history  in  vol.  1.  pp.  159.  170  of 
'.Religious  ceremonies  of  the  Mandarins.1)" 

12.  "Amongst  the  list  of  their  customs, 
however,  we  meet  a  number  which  bad  their 
origin,  it  would  seem,  in  the  Jewish  ceremo- 
nial code,  and  which  are  so  verv  peculiar  in 
their  forms   that  it  would   Pf-em  o,ujte  im- 
probable, and  almos<  impossible    that  two 
different  peoples  should  have  hn  upon  them 
fllike,    without    some    knowleder    of    each 
other.    These  I  consider  go  further   than 
anything  else  as  evidence,  and  carry  in  my 
mind,   ronciusive  proof  that  these  people 
are  tinctured  with   Jewisn  blood."    Jiid., 
vol.  2,  pp   232  to  235. 

In  keeping  with  these  facts  and  ded'ic- 
tions  of  Mr.  Catlin,  are  other  authorities 
equally  positive  Mr.  Bradford,  in  his  rn- 
*-earche?  into  the  origin  or  the  Red  race, 
adopts  the  following  conclusions  with  re- 
gard to  the  ancient  occupants*  01  mi?  conti- 
nent: 

1  "That  they  were  of  the  sam«  origin, 
'•••^riches  of  the  game  race,  and  possessed 
of      Milar  customs  and  institutions." 

2  'That  they  were  populous  aud  occu- 
p^u  a  great  extent  of  territory." 

3.  "That  they  had  arrived  at  a  consider- 
able degree  of  civilization   were  associated 
in  large  communities,  and  lived  hi  exten- 
sive cities." 

4.  "  That  they  possessed  a  use  of  many 
of  the  metals,  such  as  lead,  copper,  gold, 
silver,  and  probably  the  art  of  working  in 
them." 

5.  "That  they  sculptured  in  stone,  and 
sometimes  used  that  material  in  the  con- 
struction of  their  edifices." 

6.  "  That  they  had  the  knowledge  of  the 
arch,  of  receding  steps  ;  and  the  art  of  pot- 
tery— producing  urns  and  utensils  formed 
with  taste,  and  constructed  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  chemical  composition  ;  and  of  the 
art  of  brickmaking." 

7.  "That  they  worked  the  salt  springs, 
and  manufactured  that  substance." 

8.  "That  they  were  an  agricultural  peo- 
ple, living  under  the  influence  of  regular 
forms  of  government." 

9.  "  That  they  possessed  a  decided  system 
of  religion,  and  a  my thology  connected  with 
Astronomy,  which  with  its  sister  science, 
Geometry,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  priest- 
hood."   ' 

10.  "  That  they  were  skilled  in  the  art  of 
fortification." 

11.  "That  the  epoch  of  their  original  set- 
tlement, in  the  United  States  is  of  great 
antiquity,"  and  lastly, 

"That  the  only  indications  of  their  ori- 
gin to  bo  gathered  from  the  locality  of  their 
-uined  monuments,  point  toward  Mexico." 


Thus  far  I  have  read  copiously  from  these 
celebrated  authors,  and  yet  their  pages  are 
filled  with  unnoticed  and  untouched  corrob- 
orative proofs  of  what  I  have  stated  to  you 
of  the  greatness  and  grandeur  of  the  an- 
cient civilizations  of  this  continent  I  hav«* 
also  gathered  in  running  through  the  works 
of  various  authors  upon  these  things  brie? 
statements  which  will  aid  you  in  determin- 
ing to  some  extent  the  certainty  of  the  ap- 
plications of  my  arguments  to  these  ancient 
peoples  as  reflected  in  their  own  history,  as 
F  claim,  set  ou»,  in  tne  Book  of  Mormon. 
They  are  as  follows: 

1.*'  They  had  a  ptandard  or  measure- 
ment and  had  a  means  01  determining  an- 
gles."  Baldwin  p  U4. 

2  ''Thes*-  turns  w*r>i  nor  bull'  *>y  the 
Egyptians."  (Stephens,  vol  2,  p  441 

».  Yel  of  *  figure  in  Palenque  Mr  Short, 
in  his  work  p  .'tf)2.  dales  '  Th*  head  .Iresa 
has  teeu  pronounced  Egyptian  r>v  au  wno 
havt>  seen  it 

4  •  They  had  Priests ."  S-tepneas  vol. 
C  p  447 

•i       Divmers  and  Priests.1      loid.  vol.  I. 

r  175 

t>  Tnev  w?r<j  agriculturists  oud  also 
engage'!  in  *pimuug  aiiu  weaving  ''  Bald- 
Wiii  |  p  *O  41 

i  "  Mad»  use  jf  astronomical  instru- 
ments '  It'.d.  42 

&  -'Used  military  machines  in  war" 
Slephen-*,  r  p  177  ITS 

ft  '  Beiifvod  in  iue  flood,  an<1  had  traces 
Of  th>  towei  \>t  Bat,el  Bhort  kW. 

10.  "Possessed  a  knowledge  o<%  the  tr.i- 
ences,  and  nieials*  aucf  u.-sed   tools  01  por- 
phyry."   Baldwin,  pp   tt)  <Jo. 

11.  •' A  phonetic  system  of  writing  was 
had  among  them.'      ibid.  137 

These  evidences  :tre  clear  and  satisfactory . 
I  hopa  my  opponent  Will  tak-jthem  up  one. 
by  one,  and  examine  them  But  during 
the  remainder  of  my  timo  this  evening.  I 
shall  examine  another  matter  LOOK  alter 
his  tirade  upon  character,  el e 

Th?  statement  mado  by  him  on  last,  even- 
ing, that  the  Bible  was'believea  in  t>y  the 
best  minds  of  every  age,  and  so  the  mes- 
sages of  the  prophets,  is»  not  true,  if  he 
means  by  this  what  the  worl  1  called  best 
in  their  time.  What  (he  worl  1  called  the 
best  minds,  did  not  accept  God's  messages 
through  the  prophets  when  brought,  in  any 
age.  Scarcely  a  household  received  the 
message  sent  by  Noah,  and  doubtless  there 
were  many  plausible  reasons  hatched  up, 
and  set  afloat,  by  the  cunning  craftiness 
and  deception  of  malicious  men,  and  ren- 
dered plausible,  in  order  to  feed  the  vain 
and  foolish  minds  of  the  lovers  of  false- 
hood; and  thus  they  were  16d  along  iu 
blindness  and  darkness  to  destruction. 
Under  the  vile  array  of  slander  and  fdUc- 
hood,  the  masses  were  marshaled  against 
Elijah  the  Prophet,  and  they  sought  his 
life,  and  he  was  compelled  to  flee  his  coun- 
try for  safety  ;  and  in  the  wilderness,  he 
was  fed  by  a  .bird  of  the  forest.  Moses  was 
derided  and  falsely  accused  in  the  very 
camp  of  Israel,  and  it  was  necessary  that 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


God  open  the  earth  and  swallow  up  his  ma- 
ligners  Isaiah  was  sawn  asunder.  Some- 
thing was  hatched  up  by  the  enemies  of  the 
truth,  and  made  the  basis  of  an  accusation, 
which  inflamed  and  encouraged  this  vile 
attack,  or  it  never  could  have  beeu  made. 
Jeremiah  was  accused  as  a  traitor  to.  his 
country,  was  imprisoned,  and  put  in  a  pit 
of  mire  and  filth,  and  left  to  die;  aud  only 
escaped  &r>  by  :t  miracle.  Indeed,  «o  uni- 
versally liad  iho  prophets  been  opposed, 
slandered,  misrepresented,  and  lied  about, 
lrorr«  <h«»  days  of  Adam  to  Christ,  that  it 
was«  state'!  by  him— aud  seems"  1o  havo 
pt«nvri  into  a  proverb — "A  prophet  is  not 
without  honor,  save  111  his  own  country.'' 
Why  not?  Because  of  tho  misrepresenta- 
tions and  slanderous  accusations,  invented 
and  hawked  about  by  the  enemies  of  tho 
message  which  he  brings.  Not  being  able 
tc  tnswpr  the  message  upon  the  ground  of 
truth  and  fairness,  they  xesort  to  untau- 
I.-PSS  falsehood,  and  stories  hatched  up  and 
inyemously  circulated  in  order  to  break 
d.iwti  th-»  prophet's  character,  to  blind  the 
people  and  prejudice  them  against  the  me?- 
payn,  Ihis  was  the  devil's  system  >f  war- 
far?  from  Adam  to  Christ,-  When  Jesus 
Christ  came  with  a  message  from  God,  the> 
aiuli-deceiver  appeared  upon  tho  field  of 
J.-aftli  armed  with  the  old  weapons  of  slau 
«Jff  and  misrepresentation.  The  accuser 
always  feigned  great  piety  and  love  and 
reverence  tor  all  past  prophets  and  hea- 
venly messages.  Ho  did  this  in  order  to 
more  readily  gull  the  pious.  Among  their 
tir*l  moves,  they  camo  to  Phrist  and  said  : 
'•  Master,  we  would  see  a  Mgu  from  tlieu.'' 
But  he  replied,  "A1  evil  a.:d  adulterous 
generation  seeketh  aftei  a  .sign."  Indicat- 
ing that  honest  meu  beheva  the  truth  from 
other  evidences, 

They  were  soon  in  counsel  seeking  to  in- 
vent a  scheme  by  which  to  destroy  him, 
Matt.  12:14.  They  sent  a  committee  to 
catch  him  in  his  words,  and  failing  iu  this 
they  assailed  his  character  and  filled  Jeru- 
selem  with  slanderous  etories.  When  ho 
dM  a  good  deed  it  was  in  their  view,  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  devil,  "Beelzebub." 
They  accused  him  of  being  born  of  fornica- 
tion, of  low  parentage  and  of  coming  from 
a  low  city.  Called  him  a  "glutton  and  a 
wine  bibber,1'  and  accused  him  of  being  a 
friend  of  publicans  and  sinners  ;  he  was  BO 
defamed,  black  mailed,  slandered,  and  lied 
about  by  certain  >f  the  people,  that  the 
masses  were  blinded  and  marshaled  against 
him,  aud  demanded  his  life;  all  from  the 
etories  of  lying  lips.  This,  too,  while  they 
were  making  great  pretensions  to  piety  and 
reverence  for  the  ways  of  God  and  the 
prophets  of  the  past. 

Jesus  discovering  their  hypocrisy,  re- 
torts : 

"Woe  onto  you  Scribes  and  rharisees.  hypocrites! 
'because  ye  build  the  tombs  of  'he  prophets,  and  gar 
'nish  the  sepulchres  of  the  riuhteous  and  say.  If  we 
'had  been  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we  would  not  have 
'been  partakers  with  them  of  the  blood  of  the  proph- 
'ets.  Wherefore  ye  be  witnesses  yourselves  that  ye 
'are  the  children  of  them  that  killed  thi  prophets. 
'Fill  ye  up  the  meHsure  of  your  fathers.  Ye  serpents, 
"ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  dam- 


"nation  of  hell.  Behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets  and 
"wise  men  and  scribes,  and  &  me  of  them  ye  shall 
"kill  and  crucify  and  some  of  them  shall  ye  scourge 
"in  your  synagogues  and  persecute  from  city  to  city," 
etc 

Their  great  pretensions  to  the  love  of  the 
cause  of  God  was  feigned,  that  they  might 
more  easily  blind  and  influence  the  multi- 
tude against  Christ.  Did  they  assail  his 
doctrine  f  oh  no ;  that  was  too  hard  tor 
tbetu.  Moving  in  the  dark,  among  the 
masses,  peddling  hatched  up  stories  was  the 
effectual  way  of  procedure  This  ungodly 
method  oi  warfare  against  the  grandest 
being  thai  ever  lived  was  carried  oi>  until 
Jerusalem  was  moved  to  join  hands  aud  de- 
mand the  life  of  the  Christ,  and  failnij.  to 
make  out  a  just  case,  they  falsely  accused 
him,  aud  suborned  witnesses  to  testify 
against  him,  and  he  was  condemned  tod  th 
and  crucified  "Many  bore  false  witness 
against  him  •'  Mark  14  .  66.  The  death  of 
Christ  did  not  relieve  him  from  the  false 
charges  of  his  enemies  While  his  body  lay 
in  Joseph's  new  tomb,  then  went  they  to 
Pilate  saying.  '•  Sir  we  remember  that  that 
deceiver  said,  while  b«*  was  yet  alive,  after 
thre-»  days  I  wti  rise  again.  Command 
therefore  that  the  sepulcher  be  mads  sure 
until  tru«  tni rd  day,  lest  bis  disciples  come 
by  night  an<1  steal  him  away,  and  say  unto 
thr»  people  H-»  H  risen  from  the  dead,  so 
th^  last  error  shall  bv  worse  than  the  first." 
Matt-  27  .  83.  64.  All  this  took  place  while 
thrt  witnesses  of  Je^us  were  in  the  midst  of 
the  people,  ready  t>»  vindicate  hi*  character, 
but  they  had  no  ears  to  hear  them.  They 
loved  stone?,  and  inventions  and  what 
tnco'rf  neighbors  said,  rat-hei  than  truth. 
Finally,  whom  Jesus  bad  arisen  from  the 
dead  according  to  his  word.it  did  not  fo1' 
th«  persistency  of  hie  ememies.  or  assuape 
their  malice  or  hate  ,  PO  they  circulated  the 
story,  "  His  diciples  came  ty  night,  and 
stole  him  away  while  we  6lept;''aud,  they 
°ave  tho  soldier?  large  sums  of  mouey  to 
circulate  this  story,  with  the  promise,  that 
if  it  came  to  tho  "Governor's  ears,  we  will 
persuade  him  and  secure  you  "  Matt.  28  12, 
13,  14.  But  the  misrepresentations,  cu  rung 
inventions,  and  slanders  against  the  cause 
of  Christ,  did  not  stop  here;  they  followed 
the  apostles  wherever  they  went,  and  called 
them  "blasphemers,"  "pestilent,"  "and 
movers  of  sedition  among  the  Jews  through- 
out the  world."  Acts  25  :  5.  This  was  so 
widely  circulated  that  it  was  said,  "As 
concerning  this  sect,  we  knoiu  that  it  is 
everywhere  spoken  against."  Acts  28  :  22. 

Later,  in  the  time  of  the  grandson  of  St. 
Luke,  this  same  unjust  course  was  followed, 
and  they  were  published  and  vilified  every- 
where. But,  says  my  opponent,  they  were 
false  stories.  Who  said  they  were  false? 
Their  enemies  or  their  friends  ?  Why,  the 
descendants  of  the  enemies  to  this  very 
day  maintain  that  the  stories  were  true, 
and  that  the  Christians  were  deceivers. 
And  in  the  narative  of  such  a  learned  his- 
torian as  Gibbon,  we  have  an  account  that 
in  'the  time  of  these  grandsons,  before  re- 
ferred to,  the  Emperor  of  Rome  sent  a  com- 
mittee to  interrogate  them  and  spy  out  the 


€0 


THE  BRADEX  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


probable  damage  they  might  likely  be  able 
to  iuflict  upon  his  kingdom,  if  Jet  live,  and 
the  messenger  returned  the  answer,  that 
they  were  men  who  were  settled  on  a  little 
spot  of  ground,  and  had  hard,  rough  nands 
from  working  as  slaves  for  a  livelihood,  and 
not  worth  noticing  Before  this,  a  like  in- 
terview had  been  had  with  the  apostle  Paul 
by  one  of  the  most  noted  scholars  of  the 
age-,  and  he  returned  the  answer  to  his 
Emperor  that,  "Paul  entertained  no  opin- 
ions that  were  calculated  tointerestor  bene- 
fit men  of  attainments  and  culture."  Great 
<3ocl !  I  couid  reproduce  such  stories  which 
Veie  affirmed  to  be  true  tor  hundreds  of 
years  after  Jesus'  time  against  the  early 
Christians,  until  I  might  arouse  theindisr- 
nation  if  this  au-.Iience  against  them,  were 
I  disposed  to  stoop  to  gathering  garbage 
for  weapons.  The  books  are  so  laden,  that 
when  Gibbon  had  gone  through  them, 
although  before  a  devoted  Christian,  it 
nauseated  his  hope  in  Christ,  and  he  turn- 
ed from  worship,  saying  it  seems  to  me 
that  if  the  great  things  told  of  in  the 
scriptures  are  true  tj;ey  aught  to  be  had  by 
the  people  now  as  then,  and  I  "  find  by  run- 
ning through  the  history  of  the  world,  that 
mankind  have  been  more  ready  to  accept 
the  history  as  correct  of  what'occured  in 
their  forefather's  time,  than  to  believe  the 
evidences  of  their  own  senses."  He  there- 
fore came  to  the  conclusion  that  no  miracles 
were  ever  performed  as  claimed  by  Jesus 
and  the  apostles.  The  quotation  is  made 
from  memory,  but  I  am  su'-e  if  not  the 
exact  wording,  the  t;ue  thought  and  idea 
is  carefully  preserved  and  presented. 

Volumes  might  be  adduced  to  show  that 
the  work  of  scandalizing,  has  been  the 
method  pursued  by  the  enemies  of  truth 
and  progress  in  every  age  ;  not  only  to  meet 
prophets  and  religious  truth,  but  scientific 
truth  as  well  ;  and  the  battle  has  been 
waged  almost  in  every  instance  when  a  new 
message  has  been  sent  to  man,  or  a  new 
truth  revealed.  With  such  a  history  before 
the  world,  is  it  not  strikingly  strange  that 
in  the  blaze  of  the  light  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  that  men  professing  as  profound  a 
reverence  for  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  as  the 
Jews  did  for  Moses  and  the  prophets,  will 
accept  this  method  of  warfare,  and  scour 
the  universe  to  hunt  stories  and  gossip,  to 
meet  the  claims  and  argument  of  a  people, 
rather  than  accept  the  gage  of  fair  and 
honorable  warfare,  and  investigate  their 
claims  in  the  light  of  the  facts  presented. 
Strange  as  it  may  appear,  this  is  all  the 
kind  of  warfare  that  has  ever  in  the  least 
succeeded  against  the  message  brought  by 
the  Hook  of  Mormon,  and  believed  by  the 
Saints.  It  is  much  easier  to  call  Joseph 
Smith  an  "infamous  scoundrel,"  and  a 


"fraud,"  than  to  prove  his  message  false. 
It  is  easier  to  assert  that  Sidney  Rigdon 
was  "fanatical"  and  "lazy,"  than  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints 
untrue. 

It  is  far  more  suitable  to  perverted  tastes 
to  drink  a  little  satisfaction  from  a  misuse 
of  the  words,  Mormon,  Mormonism,  and  "it 
came  to  pass,"  than  to  accept  the  word  of 
God. 

Stories,  slander,  the  traducing  of  charac- 
ter is  the  method  adopted  by  my  opponent. 
This  is  not  new,  but  an  "old  system  of 
attack ;  but  the  only  one  that  ever  did 
succeed  even  momentarily  against  the 
truth. 

Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  did  you  ever 
listen  for  so  long  a  time,  to  such  a  dark  and 
misty  web  as  was  spun  by  my  opponent 
last  night?  The  whole  material  of  which 
was  gathered  from  the  ebony  cloud  of 
goss?p,  tattle  and  scandal.  Somebody  said 
that  one  Spaulding  wrote  a  romance.  Some 
one  els'e  said  that  they  had  heard  it  read. 
It  would  seem  from  one  of  the  stories,  that 
Spuuiding  made  a  business  of  going  around 
and  reading  it  to  his  neighbors.  In  process 
of  time  it  was  left  with  a  printer.  It  was 
not  seen  afterwards.  Sidney  Rigdon  was 
in  the  tanning  business  in  that  city;  he 
was  awful  lazy,  however;  and  of  course  he 
must  have  stolen  it.  The  printer  Patter- 
son, said  no  such  manuscript  was  ever 
there,  but  that  is  nothing,  the  story  runs 
on  just  as  glibly.  Then  there  were  some 
old  trunks,  over  in  Pennsylvania  and  York 
States,  left  in  back-rooms  and  by-places, 
etc.,  etc.  One  Rigdon  reads  a  book  on  one 
occasion  and  wou'd  not  let  his  niece  see  it. 
This  was  in  Ohio.  P^inal'-y  a  stranger  is 
seen  in  Palmyra,  N.  Y.  No  one  knows 
indeed  who,  and  there  is  no  evidence  in 
fact  that  there  was  one  there.  Finally  the 
Book  of  Mormon  was  published  in  March, 
1830,  and  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year  Sidney 
Rigdon  came  in  contact  with  the  latter  Day 
Saints,  believed  their  message,  and,  there- 
fore he  is  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  Joseph  Smith  is  the  cat's  paw  by  which 
it  is  to  be  foisted  upon  the  world  under  the 
inspiration  of  a  peep  stone  which  is  stolen 
from  one  of  his  neighbor's  children.  Won- 
derful indeed  !  He  did  not  tell  us  whether 
Joseph  could  really  see  anything  extraor- 
dinary in  the  stone  or  not.  If  so,  there 
might  be  something  in  the  seeing  business 
after  all.  If  not  what  inducement  was 
there  for  Joseph  to  steal  one  in  order  to 
perpetrate  a  fraud,  when  he  had  but  to 
stoop  down  to  pick  one  up  and  run  no  risks. 
It  matters  not  however,  which  horn  <>f  the 
dilemma  my  opponent  takes,  his  story  will 
run  on  just  the 

(Time  expired). 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


61 


MR.    BRADEN'S    SIXTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — Mr.  Kelley  started  out  with 
the  assertion  that  at  the  time  the  Book  of 
Mormon  appeared,  no  one  had  thought  of 
certain  facts  in  archaeology,  ethnology,  phi- 
lology and  antiquities  of  America,  that  are 
assumed  and  stated  as  facts  in  that  book. 
Therefore  if  scientific  research  has  demon- 
strated, since  the  Book  appeared,  that  these 
statements  and  assumptions  are  true,  the 
Book  must  be  true.  It  is  either  a  revelation 
of  such  truths,  for  it  stated  them  before  they 
were  learned  by  any  human  means  ot  learn- 
ing, or  an  actual  history  of  them  He  claims 
that  it  is  an  actual  history  given  to  Joe 
Smith,  by  revelation,  and  translated  by 
him  by  inspiration.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
may  be  divided  into  two  portions  :  I.  Cer- 
tain assumptions  and  statement  in  archaeol- 
ogy, ethnology,  philology  and  the  antiqui- 
ties of  America.  II.  Certain  historical 
statements  based  on  these  assumptions,  in- 
archaeology,  ethnology,  philology  and  the 
antiquities  of  America,  that  assume  to  ac- 
account  for  the  antiquities  of  America,  and 
to  explain  its  archaeology,  ethnology  and 
philology.  My  opponent's  argument  has 
been  an  attempt  to  establish  the  truth  of 
the  first  >vart.  He  has  never  touched  the 
second.  ..*'  we  prove  that  all  of  the  first 
part  was  well  known  long  before  the  Book 
of  Mormon  appeared  we  refute  his  proof. 

I  have  before  me  a  work  entitled  "At- 
lantis," by  I.  B.  Donnelly.  In  it  he  traces 
certain  legends  such  as  the  Deluge,  and 
certain  stories  all  over  America,  and  shows 
that  they  are  found  in  Europe,  in  Asia,  and 
Africa.  He  traces  resemblances  between 
the  arts  and  antiquities  of  the  O'd  World 
and  the  New.  He  traces  resemblances  in 
philology  or  languages,  between  peoples 
of  America  and  peoples  of  Asia,  Africa  and 
Europe.  He  traces  ethnological  affinities 
between  the  tribes  of  America  and  the 
Celts,  the  Scandinavians,  Basques,  Iber- 
ians and  other  Europeans — the  Egyptians, 
ancient  Africans,  and  the  Negroes,  the 
Chinese,  Hindoos,  Persians  and  Malays. 
He  traces  resemblances  in  arts,  civilization, 
sciences,  literature,  customs  between  the 
peoples  of  America  and  peoples  of  P^urope, 
Asia  and  Africa.  A  larger  portion  of  the 
authorities  he  quotes  were  written  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared.  It  has  been 
known  from  the  conquest  of  Mexico  by  Cor- 
tez,  that  there  were  three  civilizations  in 
Mexico,  three  immigrations  into  that  coun- 
try, the  Toltecs,  the  Chicemas  and  the  Az- 
tecs, and  that  the  first  Mere  very  highly 
civilized.  It  has  been  known  since  the  con- 
quest of  Peru  by  Pizarro  that  there  had 
been  three  or  more  civilizations  there,  that  of 
the  Incas  being  the  last.  It  had  been  known 
for  more  than  one  hundred  years  before  the 
Book  of 'Mormon  appeared,  that  mounds, 
fortifications,  ruins,  antiquities  and  relics 


had  been  found  all  over  North  America.  It 
had  been  decided  that  they  had  been  the 
work  of  races  that  were  in  America  before 
the  Indians,  if  this  is  denied  we  will  give 
the  names  of  the  authors.  It  had  been 
a  prevalent  idea  that  the  Indians  were  of 
Israelite  origin.  Affinities  of  some  tribes  to 
the  Scandinavian,  Welsh,  Tartars,  Hindoos. 
Chinese,  Persians.  Israelites  and  Egyptians, 
had  been  observed  and  published 

My  opponent  makes  mucn  of  tne  cities  of 
Central  America.  Cabrina  and  others  had 
published  descriptions  of  these  long  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared.  It  was  such 
books  and  not  the  Book  of  Mormon  that 
caused  Stephens  Squiers  and  others  to  ex- 
plore Central  America.  Not  only  so  biu 
Cortez  in  his  conquest  of  America  conquered 
Central  America,  then  a  part  of  the  Aztec 
Empire,  and  conquered  these  very  cities, 
and  his  companions  who  wrote  of  his  con- 
quests describe  them.  They  were  inhabited 
when  Balboa,  another  Spanish  adventurer, 
explored  the  Isthmus  and  countries  around 
it.  So  declare  Herrer0-  and  other  Spanish 
writers  quoted  by  Wilson  Prescott  and 
other  American  writers. 

Baron  Humboldt  visited  Central  America 
and  described  these  ruins  and  his  book  was 
published  in  England  and  America  in  1806. 
Spaulding  was  familiar  with  it.  The  Book 
of  Mormon  agrees  literally  with  Humboldt. 
Where  he  is  right,  it  is  right.  Where  late 
research  proves  that  he  is  in  error,  it  is  in 
error.  That  is  all  we  need  to  say  in  regard 
to  his  long  lingo  in  regard  to  antiquities. 

We  have  proved  that  Solomon  Spaulding 
was  an  enthusiast  in  American  antiquities, 
believed  that  the  Indians  were  descendants 
of  the  Israelites.  As  an  earnest  advocate  of 
such  theories,  and  as  an  enthusiast  in 
American  antiquities,  he  was  well  versed 
in  the  literature  of  the  subject.  Seventeen 
witnesses  of  rhe  highest  character  testify 
that  he  wrote  his  "Manuscript  Found" 
assuming  all  these  facts  and  theories,  pre- 
tending to  give  a  history  of  the  people  who 
were  the  authors  of  these  ruins  and  anti- 
quities several  years  before  the  Book  of 
Mormon  appeared.  That  Rigdon  stole  hia 
manuscript  and  interpolated  the  religious 
matter.  I  challenge  my  opponent  to  name 
one  theory  or  assumption  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  that  research  has  sustained,  that 
I  cannot  prove  to  have  been  weli  known 
before  the  Book  appeared.  This  overturns 
his  entire  argument.  Let  him  prove  that 
the  Jaredites,  Nephites  and  Zarahemlites 
came  to  America  and  had  such  a  history  as 
recorded  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  All  that 
he  quotes  from  the  Book  of  Mormon  was 
well  known  before  it  appeared.  If  he  will 

Krove  the  truth  of  its  historic  statements 
e   will   sustain   his   book.      Proving   that 
certain    asssumptions    are    true,    no  more 
prove  that  his  book  is  true,  than  proving 


62 


THE  BHADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEB  VTE. 


thai;  similar  assumptions  in  Scott's  novels 
are  true,  proves  that  those  novels  are  teal. 

I  will  agree  to  take  Scott's  novels  and 
prove  that  a  far  greater  portion  of  Waverly 
or  Ivanhoe  is  true  in  archaeology,  antiqui- 
ties, etc.,  than  my  opponent  can  prove  to  be 
true  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Not  only  so, 
but  I  will  prove  that  its  characters  were 
real  persons  in  a  majority  of  instances,  its 
places  real,  its  battles  real,  and  yet  they 
are  novels.  He  can  not  prove  that  a  per- 
son, a  place,  or  a  battle  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  is  real.  I  can  offer  ten  fold  as 
much  proof  of  the  very  kind  he  offers,  to 
prove  the  truth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  for 
Ivannoe,  and  of  the  same  kind.  His  line 
of  proof  is  absurd  to  idiocy.  He  takes  the 
romance  written  by  Spaulding,  in  which 
he  assumed  certain  things  well  known,  as 
the  basis,  and  claims  it  is  alJ  true,  because 
these  facts  so  assumed  as  the  basis  are  true. 
I  will  prove  Robinson  Crusoe  to  be  true 
and  of  divine  origin  in  the  same  way. 

We  will  now  resume  our  history  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  We  have  come  down  to 
the  time  of  publication. 

In  the  fall  of  1829  Martin  Harris,  one  of 
the  gang,  mortgaged  his  farm,  and  E.  B. 
Grandin  of  Palmyra,  began  the  publication 
of  the  Book.  The  manuscript  was  carried 
by  several  of  the  gang,  a  small  portion  each 
morning,  and  removed  at  night,  for  weeks. 
At  last  they  were  less  careful.  Mr.  Gilbert 
says  that  the  Imposter  was  very  particular 
to  insist  that  the  manuscript  be  set  up  ex- 
actly as  written.  The  translation  had  been 
done  by  inspiration,  and  it  would  be  blas- 
phemy to  alter  one  iota.  But  as  there  was 
no  punctuation,  but  little  use  of  capitals, 
and  as  it  abounded  in  mispelled  words,  and 
the  most  outrageous  grammatical  blunders, 
the  printer  absolutely  refused  to  allow  such 
an  atrocious  affair  to  go  forth  with  his  im- 
print on  it.  The  printer  was  allowed  to 
correct  some  blunders  in  the  manuscript. 
When  one  reads  the  book,  and  sees  the 
thousands  of  blunders  in  it,  after  all  the 
printer's  care,  the  query  arises  "  What  must 
the  manuscript  have  been?"  What  a  pity 
the  printer  interfered  with  inspiration,  in 
the  way  he  did.  If  the  manuscript  had 
been  printed  exactly  as  it  carne  from  the 
inspired  lips  of  Joe,  and  as  it  was  penned 
by  the  inspired  Oliver,  who  had  special  di- 
vine commission  and  unction  to  do  his  work, 
no  doubt  the  world  would  have  been  con- 
verted long  ago  by  such  sublime  evidences 
of  inspiration.  That  printer  robbed  the 
w6rld  of  "  the  more  part "  of  the  inspiration 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

In  the  meantime  Rigdon  was  preaching 
and  working  constantly  to  prepare  the  way 
for  his  scheme.  He  preached  extravagant 
ideas  of  the  millenium,  such  as  are  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon — community  of  goods — 
restoration  of  miraculous  gifts — new  revela- 
tions and  that  something  wonderful  was 
going  to  happen.  In  private  he  approached 
persons  as  he  did  D.  Atwater.  A  portion 
of  the  Kirtland  Church  of  Disciples  that 
was  organized  by  him  and  made  up  Krgely 
of  his  converts  formed  a  common  stock  com- 


!  rouniry  and  practiced  feet-washing,  another 
Mormon  peculiarity  at  the  beginning.  They 
did  this  under  the  direction  of  Rigdon  and 
Titus  Billings,  who  became  a  Mormon  with 
Rigdon.  In  June,  1830,  Rigdon  attended  the 
Annual  Meeting  of  the  Mahoning  Associa- 
tion in  Austintown.  In  an  address  he  pre- 
sented his  hobbies  in  regard  to  return  to 
community  of  goods,  and  restoration  of 
spiritual  gifts,  a  restoration  of  everything 
in  the  apostolic  churches.  He  was  signally 
defeated,  in  discussion  by  Campbell.  He 
left  the  Association  soured  and  disap- 
pointed, declaring  that  he  ''had  done  as 
much  for  the  Restoration  as  Campbell 
and  Scott,  yet  they  got  all  the  honors." 
Tradition  tells  us  that,  by  advice  of  Camp- 
bell, Rigdon  was  put  up  to  preach  on  Lord's 
Day,  as  a  plaster  to  his  wounded  egotism. 
He  discoursed  on  "Envy,"  and  took  the 
conduct  of  Haman  towards  Mordecai  as  an 
illustration  of  the  meanness  of  envy.  All 
understood  what  he  meant.  Campbell  and 
Scott  were  the  Hamans,  who,  although 
mounted  on  the  King's  horse  of  public 
honor,  were  envious  of  Rigdon,  the  Morde- 
cai sitting  in  the  gate.  When  he  came  to  a 
description  of  Haman's  triumphal  pioces- 
sion  on  the  King's  horse,  the  horse  ran. 
away  with  Sidney.  He  mounted  that  horse 
and  cavorted  miraculously  for  someminutes. 
He  turned  him  into  a  veritable  Pegasus, 
and,  like  Bellerophon,  he  cleft  the  skies,  and 
soared  among  the  stars.  As  he  was  sky- 
scraping  in  his  description  of  King  Ahasue- 
rus'  horse,  Walter  Scott  took  aim  at  him, 
and  brought  him  down  from  among  the 
stars  by  roaring  out  in  his  broad  Scotch, 
"Glory  to  King  Ahasuerus'  horse!"  Rig- 
don had  gone  up  like  a  rocket;  Scott 
brought  him  down  like  a  stick. 

Rigdon  returned  home  to  Mentor.  He 
sent  for  Pratt  who  came  through  Mentor  in 
August,  and  went  from  Rigdon  straight  to 
Manchester,  in  the  wilds  of  New  York, 
thirty  miles  from  any  public  thoroughfare, 
and  Imposter  Joe's  mother  says  he  arrived 
Saturday  night,  all  worn  out  after  an  ex- 
cessive day's  journey,  and  was  converted 
that  night'and  made  a  preacher  of  the  New 
Dispensation  the  next  day,  doubtless,  "ac- 
cording to  previous  appointment,"  as  the 
preachers  say.  Pratt  visited  his  brother 
Orson  and  enlisted  him  in  tne  scheme. 
Then  he  and  Cowdry  and  Whitmer  returned 
to  Mentor.  After  weakly  pretending  to  be 
ignorant  of  the  scheme,  and  to  oppose  it, 
Rigdon  is  miraculously  converted,  by  a  vis- 
ion, embraces  Mormonism,  goes  to  New 
York,  he  and  Imposter  Joe  have  a  revela- 
tion, that  Joe  is  the  Moses,  Sidney  the 
Aaron  of  the  movement,  and  that  Kirtland 
is  to  be  possessed  by  the  saints  forever,  and 
Smith  and  his  adherents,  made  up  chiefly  of 
confederates  in  his  money-digging  frauds 
and  schemes,  and  confederates  in  the  new 
fraud,  the  Book  of  Mormon,  move  to  Ohio 
Rigdon  takes  his  new  brethren  around  to  tha 
congregations  for  which  he  had  preached, 
and  which  he  had  industriously  prepared 
for  his  move,  and  the  Rigdonites  in  these 
churches  embrace  Mormonism  and  tho  fr»ud 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


was  fully  inaugurated  in  Kirtland,  Ohio,  in 
1831. 

We  have  thus  traced  the  origin  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  We  have  proved  that 
JSolomon  Spaulding  was  the  author  of  the 
•historic  portion.  Sidney  Rigdon  the  author 
of  the  religious  portion,  and  that  Impostor 
Joe  gave  it  to  the  world  by  means  of  his 
stolen  peep-stone.  It  was  begotten  by 
Spaulding  in  sin,  conceived  by  Rigdon  in 
iniquity,  and  brought  forth  by  Impostor 
Joe  in  depravity  and  pollution.  It  has 
spoken  lies  from  its  birth,  and  has  lived  on 
fraud  and  fanaticism,  and  has  resulled  in 
delusion  and  ruin  to  thousands.  It  has 
gone  to  seed  in  Utah,  in  pollution  that 
would  disgust  Priapus  himself,  and  horrify 
a  satyr.  Priapus  Young  and  He-goat 
Kim  ball  are  the  ripened  fruit  of  the  infamy. 
We  will  now  take  up  the  detection  of  the 
fraud.  In  an  article  published  in  the  Bos- 
ton Journal,  May  13,  1829,  Mrs.  Matilda 
Davidson,  formerly  Solomon  Spaulding's 
wife  and  widow,  testifies  : 

"In  1834,  a  Mormon  preacher.  In  a  meeting  In  Con- 
neaut,  Ohio,  read  copious  extracts  from  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  The  historical  part  was  immediately  recog- 
nized, by  all  the  older  inhabitants,  as  the  identical 
work  of  Mr.  SpMUlding,  in  which  they  had  been  so 
deeply  interested  years  before.  John  Spaulding  was 
present,  and  recognized  perfectly  the  work  of  his 
brother.  He  was  annoyed  and  afflicted,  that  it  should 
have  perverted  to  so  wicked  a  purpose.  His  grief 
found  vent  in '  a  flood  of  tears,  and  he  arose  on  the 
spot  and  expressed  to  the  meeting  his  sorrow  and  re- 
gret that  the  writings  of  his  deceased  brother,  should 
he  used  for  a  purpose  so  vile  and  shocking.  The  ex- 
citement in  Conneant,  became  so  great  that  the  inhabi- 
tants held  a  meeting,  and  deputised  Dr.  Phila.nus 
llurlbut,  one  of  their  number,  to  repair  to  tnis  place 
and  obtain  from  me  the  original  manuscript  of  Mr, 
Simulcling.  for  the  purpose  of  comparinu  it  with  the 
Mormon  Bible,  to  satisfy  their  own  minds,  and  to 
prevent  the  friends  from  embracing  an  error  so  delu- 
sive." 

We  wish  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to 
this  statement,  that  narrates  an  occurrence 
th.it  attracted  great  attention  at  the  time. 
Ic  was  published  in  the  papers  of  the  West- 
ern Reserve,  and  all  over  the  United  States. 
The  citizens  of  Conneaut,  in  1834,  assembled 
to  hear  for  the  first  time  a  Mormon  preach- 
er. They  hear  the  first  words  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  that  any  of  them  ever  heard. 
Scores  of  them,  and  among  the  number 
Solomon  Spaulding's  brother,  his  sister-in- 
law,  his  business  partner,  one  who  had 
boarded  in  his  family  many  months,  one 
who  had  boarded  him  many  months,  and 
other  acquaintances,  without  any  expecta- 
tion or  previous  concert  of  action  on  their 
part  recognized  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
the  historical  romance  of  Solomon  Spauld- 
ing with  which  they  were  so  familiar  from 
21  to  25  years  before.  Now  let  us  hear  some 
of  their  testimony.  John  Spaulding  testifies: 
"I  have  read  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  to 
my  great  surprise  I  find  nearly  the  same  his- 
torical matter,  names,  etc.,  as  were  in  my 
brother's  writings.  I  well  remember  that 
he  wrote  in  the  old  style,  and  commenced, 
nearly  every  sentence:  'And  it  came  to 
pass  '  or  'Now  it  came  to  pass'  the  same 
«.s  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  To  the  best  of 
my  recollection  the  book  of  Mormon  is  the 
same  as  what  my  brother,  Solomon  Spauld- 


ing wrote  except  the  religious  matter."  Mar- 
tha Spaulding,  wife  of  John,  and  sister-in- 
law  of  Solomon,  testifies:  "  I  have  read  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  which  brought  fresh  to 
my  recollection  the  writings  of  Solomon 
Spaulding.  I  have  no  manner  of  doubt 
that  the  historical  part  of  the  book  of  Mor- 
mon is  the  same  that  I  have  read  and  heard 
read  more  than  20  years  ago.  The  old  obso- 
lete style  and  the  expressions:  'Arid  now 
it  came  to  pass, 'etc.,  are  the  same."  Henry 
Lake,  Solomon  Spaulding's  business  part- 
ner, testifies: 

"When  my  wife  read  to  me  from  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
she  had  read  but  a  few  minutes  before  1  was  aston- 
ished to  find  the  same  passnges  in  it  that  Solomon 
Spaulding  had  read  to  me  more  than  20  yenrs  before 
from  his  Manuscript  Foun  I.  I  have  examined  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  the  historical  part  of  it  is  principally  if'  not 
wholly  taken  from  the  Manuscript  Found.  I  well 
recollect  telling  Mr.  Spaulding  that  so  frequent  use  of 
the  words:  'And  it  came  to  pass.'  'Now  it  came  to 
pass,' rendered  the  book  ridiculous.  One  time  when 
he  was  readme:  to  me  the  tragic  account  of  Laban  I 
pointed  out  to  him  wh«t  I  considered  an  inconsistency 
which  he  promised  to  correct,  but  on  examining  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  to  my  surprise  I  find  it  stands  just 
as  he  read  it  to  me.  He  left  here  in  1813,  for  Pitts- 
burg,  to  get  his  book  published,  but  I  heard  no  more 
of  his  writings  till  I  saw  them  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Mrs.  David-on  remarked  to  Mrs.  George  ('lark,  when 
she  handed  her  the  manuscript  of  Spanlding's  Manu- 
script Found  to  read:  The  Mormon  Bible  is  almost 
a  literal  copy  of  that  manuscript." 

J.  N.  Miller,  who  boarded  months  in 
Spaulding's  family,  testifies:  "  I  have  ex- 
amined the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  I  find  in 
it  the  writings  of  Solomon  Spaulding  from 
beginning  to  end,  but  mixed  up  with  Scrip- 
ture and  other  religious  matter,  which  I 
did  not  meet  in  the  "  Manuscript  Found." 
Many  passages  in  the  Mormon  book  are 
verbatim  from  Spaulding,  others  in  part. 
The  names  Nephi,  Lehi,  Mormon,  and  in 
fact  all  the  principal  names  are  brought 
fresh  to  my  recollection  by  the  "Golden 
Bible."  Aaron  Wright  testifies:  "  Spauld- 
ing traced  the  journey  of  the  first  settlers 
of  America  from  Jerusalem  to  America,  as 
it  is  given  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  except 
the  religious  matter.  The  historical  part 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  I  know  to  be  the 
same  as  I  read  and  heard  read  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Solomon  Spaulding,  more  than 
twenty  years  ago,  the  names  especially  are 
the  same  without  alteration.  In  conclu- 
sion I  will  say  that  the  names  and  most  of 
the  historical  part  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
were  as  familiar  to  me,  before  I  read  it  as 
most  modern  history."  Oliver  Smith  tes- 
tifies :  "  When  I  heard  the  historical  part  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  I  at  once  said  it  was 
the  writing  of  Solomon  Spaulding.  Soon 
after  I  obtained  and  read  the  book,  on  read- 
ing it  found  much  of  it  the  same  as  Spauld- 
ing had  written  twenty  years  before."  Na- 
than Howard  testifies:  "I  have  read  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  believe  it  to  be  the 
same  as  Spaulding  wrote,  except  the  relig- 
ious part."  Artemus  Cunningham  testi- 
fies: "I  have  examined  the  Mormon  Bible 
and  am  fully  of  the  opinion  that  iSoIomon 
Spaulding  had  written  its  outlines  before 
leaving  Conneaut."  Joseph  Miller  of  Am- 
ity, Pa..,  who  took  care  of  Spaulding  in  his 
last  sickness,  and  familiar  with  his  maim- 


64 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


script  says:  "The  longer  I  live  the  more 
firmly  1  am  convinced  that  Spaulding's 
manuscript  was  appropriated  and  largely 
used  in  getting  up  the  Book  of  Mormon.  I 
believe  that,  leaving  out  of  the  book,  the 
portions  easily  recognized  as  the  work  ol 
Joe  Smith  and  his  accomplices,  Solomon 
Spaulding  may  be  truly  said  to  have  been 
its  author.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it."  Rud- 
dick  McGee,  who  boarded  with  the  Spauld- 
ings  and  became  familiar  with  Spaulding's 
manuscript,  says  that  "the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon was  founded  on  and  largely  copied 
from  the  romance  of  Solomon  Spaulding." 
Dr.  Dodd  who  attended  Spaulding  in  his 
last  illness,  declared  years  before  Howe's 
book  appeared,  that  "Spaulding's  manu- 
script had  been  transferred  into  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  and  that  Sydney  Rigdon  had 
done  it.  This  declaration  was  based  on 
his  knowledge  of  the  manuscript,  and  what 
Spaulding  had  told  him  about  Rigdon's 
stealing  his  manuscript.  Rev.  Abner 
Jackson  declares  :  "The  Book  of  Mormon 
follows  Spaulding's  Manuscript  too  closely 
to  be  a  stranger  to  it.  In  both  many  pas- 
sages appear,  having  the  same  names,  found 
nowhere  else.  Such  as  Moroni,  Mormon, 
Nephite,  Laman,  Lamanite,  Nephi,  etc. 
In  the  second  romance  called  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  we  are  told  the  same  story  of  the 
same  people  traveling  from  the  same  place 
in  the  same  way,  having  the  same  difficul- 
ties and  destination  with  the  same  wars, 
same  battles  and  same  leaders  and  same 
results,  such  as  the  Mormon  account  of  the 
battle  of  Comorah  in  which  all  the  right- 
eous are  slain.  How  much  this  resembles 
the  closing  scene  in  "Manuscript  Found." 
Mr.  Jackson,  who  was  in  the  meeting  at  Con- 
neaut,  when  the  Mormon  preacher  read  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  says  that  Squire  Wright 
shouted  out,  "Old-come-to-pass  has  come  to 
life  again."  Mrs.  McKinstry,  Spaulding's 
daughter,  declares  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  largely  her  father's  Manuscript 
Found.  His  wife  declares  that  it  is  a  wicked 
remodeling  of  her  husband's  work. 

We  might  add  scores  of  names  who  heard 
the  Spaulding  manuscript  and  recognized 
it  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  The  testimony  of 
these  seventeen  witnesses,  who  were  famil- 
iar with  Spaulding's  Manuscript  Found" 
prove  that  the  historical  portion  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  what  we  charge  Rigdon 
with  stealing,  is  an  almost  verbatim  repro- 
duction of  that  "Manuscript  Found."  If 
my  opponent  were  on  trial  for  his  life,  one 
quarter  of  his  testimony  would  hang  him 
higher  than  Hainan.  He  must  do  one  of 
three  things  :  [.  Prove  that  these  witnesses 
never  so  testified.  II.  Impeach  them.  III. 
Or  disprove  their  evidence  by  rebutting 
testimony.  Or  lose  his  case.  There  has 
been  some  controversy  over  Spaulding's 
motives  and  object  in  writing  his  Manu- 
script Found.  His  wife  and  daughter  stren- 
uously insist  that  he  wrote  it  merely  to 
while  away  his  time  in  declining  health. 
That  ho  had  no  intention  of  publishing  it. 
That  he  refused  to  have  it  published,  when 
Mr.  Patterson  offeied  to  publish  it.  It  is 


Erobable  that  he  so  told  his  wife.  He  may 
ave  had  two  reasons  for  it.  He  had  failed 
in  business  continually.  His  wile  sup- 
ported the  family  and  he  might  have  feared 
that  she  would  oppose  the  idea  of  publica- 
tion as  one  of  his  visionary  projects.  For 
the  preservation  of  peace  and  that  he  might 
pursue  his  purpose  unopposed,  he  doubt- 
less told  her  what  she  says  he  did.  Again 
she  seems  to  have  been  a  "woman  of  decided 
moral  convictions,  and  he  may  have  feared 
that  she  would  regard  such  a  scheme  as 
very  questionable  if  not  a  downright  fraud. 
But  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  his  inten- 
tions to  publish  it.  His  brother  says  he 
wrote  it  for  that  very  purpose,  hoping  to 
make  money  by  it.  So  say  Lake,  Smith, 
both  the  Millers,  McKee,  John  Spaulding, 
his  wife,  and  Cunningham.  Joseph  Miller 
and  McKee  say  he  prepared  a  manuscript 
for  publication  and  took  it  to  the  publish- 
ing house  for  that  purpose. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  wrote  it  for 
the  sole  purpose  of  publishing  it  and  that 
he  expected  to  make  money  by  publishing 
it.  There isnothing  wrong  al  out  this.  But 
that  his  motives,  he  knew,  were  some  of 
them  wrong,  is  eviden  t  from  the  fact  that  he 
kept  them  from  his  wife  and  daughter,  and 
also  lied  to  them  in  regard  to  his  object  in 
writing  the  manuscript.  Some  of  his  ex- 
pressions show  that  his  motives  were 
very  questionable.  He  intended  to  assert 
that  his  book  was  copied  from  a  manuscript 
dug  out  of  the  earth,  or  found  in  a  cave.  He 
expected  to  deceive  the  world  except  the 
learned  few,  and  cause  them  to  believe  this 
falsehood  that  he  intended  to  palm  oft'  on 
them;  and  also  to  induce  all,  but  the  learned 
few,  to  believe  his  book  to  be  veritable  his- 
tory as  much  so  as  any  history.  So  he  de- 
clared to  Miller  of  Conneaut,  Wright,  Cun- 
ningham and  others.  No  wonder  he  con- 
cealed his  purpose  from  his  wife  and 
daughter.  Howe  says  on  page  289,  of  his 
history,  that  he  has  a  letter  in  his  possession 
that  proves  that  Spaulding  was  sceptical 
in  his  last  days.  If  so  we  can  understand  his 
caricaturing  the  Bible  in  the  way  he  did, in 
his  romance.  The  Book  of  Mormon  \v  as  in 
its  inception  a  deliberate  fraud,  conceived 
by  a  backsliden  preacher,  who  intended 
to  foist  onto  the  world,  the  fraud  by 
falsehood,  stolen  by  another  renegade 
preacher,  who  increased  the  blasphemy 
of  the  fraud  by  plagiarising  the  Bible, 
so  as  to  deceive  the  world  by  it  as 
a  revelation.  Joe  Smith,  a  money  hunting, 
fortune  telling  impostor  and  infidel,  gave 
it  to  the  world  by  means  of  his'  peep-stone 
which  he  stole  from  Chase's  children.  We 
repeat  that  the  whole  affair  was  begotten  by 
Spaulding  in  sin,  conceived  by  Rigdon  in 
iniquity  and  brought  forth  by  Impostor 
Joe  in  depravity  and  corruption,  and  it  has 
thrived  on  ignorance,  fanaticism  and  pol- 
lution, and  has  culminated  in  Utah,  iu. 
infamy  that  would  make  devils  blush. 

Mrs.  Davidson  declares  that  Hurlbut 
wrote  to  her  from  Hartwicke  that  he  found 
the  Manuscript,  and  would  return  it  to  her. 
when  through  with  it.  He  came  to  Howe 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


65 


with  a  lie  and  told  him  he  only  found  a 
portion  of  an  entirely  different  manu- 
script. He  sold  the  manuscript  to  Rigdon 
and  Smith  took  the  money  and  went  to 
Western  Ohio  and  bought  a  farm,  and  Mrs. 
Davidson  and  her  daughter,  Mrs.  McKin- 
stry,  could  never  get  a  word  of  reply  from 
him  although  they  sent  several  letters  to 
parties  who  wrote;  they  gave  the  letters  to 
Hurlbut.  This  answers  the  Mormon  "  Why 
did  not  the  Spaulding  publish  the  Manu- 
script Found?"  Because  Mormons  had«:ot- 
ten  it  into  their  possession  by  bribing  Hurl- 
but. 

This  careful  analysis  of  evidence  enables 
us  to  brush  to  one  side  the  fog  that  Mor- 
mons have^raised  over  Rigdon's  copying  the 
manuscript.  He  did  not,  he  stole  it.  Over 
the  size  of  the  manuscript,  Miss  Spaulding 
read  at  her  uncles.  She  read  only  the 
small  manuscript,  the  first  draft  of  the 
book,  her  father  made.  Also  the  fog  over 
the  fact  that  the  manuscript  brought  by 
Hurlbut  was  not  what  the  one's  sending 
him  to  search  the  trunk  expecting  him  to 
bring.  It  explains  how  the  116  pages  of  stolen 
manuscript,  was  replaced.  They  were  re- 
placed from  another  Spaulding  manuscript, 
probably  Mormon  manuscript  No.  II.  This 
accounts  also  for  the  length  of  time  that 
Spaulding  spent  in  writing.  He  began 
in  1809  and  closed  in  1816,  a  period  of 
time  of  seven  years,  and  even  after  Rigdon 
stole  his  last  manuscript  he  wrote  on  till  he 
died.  It  accounts  also  for  the  differences 
in  the  descriptions  of  the  witnesses 
Most  of  them  heard  read  Mormon  manu- 
script No.  I.  Miller  heard  portions  of  Mor- 
mon No.  II.  Writing  different  manuscripts, 
and  adding  additional port'ons  willaccount 
for  discrepancies  and  contradictions.  Such 
as  Moroni  saying  his  plates  were  full, 
and  then  writing  the  Jaredite  portion. 
Spaulding  added  the  Jaredite  portion  and 
forgot  that  he  had  made  Moroni  close  the 
book  with  the  destruction  of  the  Nephites. 
Also  the  contradiction,  which  places  Ethers 
plates  in  the  hands  of  King  Benjamin  when 
they  did  not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
Nephites  until  years  after  King  Benjamin's 
death.  The  gross  contradiction  .  which 
makes  Coviantumu  the  last  Jaredite,  die 
among  the  people  of  King  Zarehemla  about 
200  years  B.  C.,  when  the  battle  of  which  he 
was  sole  survivor  occurred  more  than  600 
years  B.  C.  Either  he  was  over  400  years  old 
or  the  Jaredites  were  not  exterminated  until 
200  B.  C.  instead  of  600. 

SUMMARY   OF   EVIDENCE. 

Let  us  now  review  the  evidence  we  have 
presented,  and  settle  several  questions.  I. 
Are  the  witnesses  competent?  II.  Are 
they  worthy  of  belief?  III.  What  is  estab- 
lished by  their  testimony?  In  determining 
the  first  and  second  queries  there  are  sev- 
eral points  to  be  weighed.  I.  Is  the  point 
at  issue  one  that  can  be  settled  by  testi- 
mony? No  question  is  susceptible  of  clearer 
proof.  The  facts  to  be  determined  are  I. 
Did  Solomon  Rpaulding  write  a  certain  MS. 
II.  What  were  its  contents?  II.  Did  they 
have  adequate  means  of  knowing  these 


facts?  No  witnesses  ever  had  better. 
Mr.  Spaulding  was  a  preacher,  in  poor 
health  and  out  of  employment,  the  very 
man  that  would  attract  company,  and  have 
much  company,  and  of  the  highest  charac- 
ter and  intelligence.  There  was  much  ex- 
citement and  curiosity  over  certain  mounds 
that  had  been  opened.  Spaulding  had 
taken  great  interest  in  the  matter.  He  was 
writing  an  unusual  book  concerning  this 
exciting  topic.  He  was  very  fond  of  reading 
his  productions  to  all  who  would  listen  to 
him.  All  this  would  secure  him  a  ciicle  of 
intelligent  hearers.  The  singularity  of  his 
theme  would  cause  his  hearers  to  remember 
what  they  heard.  To  such  hearers  Spauld- 
ing read  large  portions  of  his  MS.  III. 
Were  they  competent  in  inteliigenceV  No 
one  can  read  their  testimony  and  tail  to  see 
that  they  were  persons  of  unusual  intelli- 
gence— the  very  class  of  persons  that  such  a 
man  as  Spaulding  would  attract  around 
him  —  that  would  be  interested  in  his 
theme  —  the  very  ones  to  whom  he  would 
read  his  work  —  and  who  would  talk  with 
him.  IV.  Were  they  persons  of  good  char- 
ter for  truth  and  veracity  ?  Their  character 
cannot  be  excelled.  Compare  them  with  the 
gang  of  loafing,  money-hunting  knaves  and 
dupes,  upon  whose  testimony  the  Book  of 
Mormon  stands.  Their  intelligence  is  infi- 
nitely above  that  srang  of  ignorant,  super- 
stitious, illiterate,  ignoramuses.  V.  Were 
they  interested  in  the  points  at  issue  ?  Tn 
noway  whatever.  On  the  other  hand  me 
witnesses  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  all  ex- 
pected to  make  money  out  of  the  fraud, 
and  had  gotten  it  up  for  that  purpose. 
VI.  Is  there  any  collusion  in  their  testi- 
mony? There  is  absolutely  none.  Never 
were  witnesses  more  independent  and  in- 
dividual in  their  testimony.  Each  tells  his 
story  in  his  own  way — tells  what  he  knows, 
in  his  own  way — is  careful  to  tell  no  more — 
is  careful  where  not  certain  to  say  so.  Had 
they  fabricated  their  testimony  they  would 
have  stated  more  than  they  did.  Contrast 
their  evidence  with  that  oif  the  eight  wit- 
nesses to  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Those  wit- 
nesses do  not  testify  separately,  but  s^n 
a  statement  prepared  for  them  by  Impost  - 
Joe.  They  testified  to  what  they  did  no 
know,  and  could  not  know.  There  is  ever) 
evidence  of  collusion  and  perjury.  The 
three  witnesses  are  worse,  for  they  testify 
to  what  an  angel  told  them ;  the  charac- 
ter of  the  entire  twelve  has  been  5<n. 
peached.  They  had  every  motive  to  in- 
duce them  to  lie.  They  had  concocted  a 
fraud  to  make  money  and  lied  to  carry  it 
out.  Our  witnesses  are  absolutely  free  I'rotu 
all  such  fatal  defects  as  those  that  utterly 
destroy  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  to  thp 
Book  of  Mormon. 

What  facts  are  established  by  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  I.  The  plot 
and  matter  of  Spaulding's  "Manuscript 
Found."  They  describe  it  clearly  and 
definitely.  It  is  precisely  the  plot  and 
matter  of  two  Books  and  only  two  of  all 
books  that  have  ever  t«en  written.  The 
Manuscript  Found  and  the  Book  of  Mor- 


66 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


mon.  II.  That  it  purported  to  be  a  real 
truthful  history  of  the  aborigines— the  first 
settlers  of  America.  To  this  testify  Mrs. 
Solomon  Spaulding,  Miss  Martha  Spauld- 
ing,  John  Spaulding,  Mrs.  John  Spauld- 
ing,  Lake,  J.  N.  Miller,  Smith  Wright, 
Howard,  Cunningham,  Jas.  Miller,  McKee, 
Dodd  and  Sidney  Rigdon.  III.  An  at- 
tempt to  account  for  the  antiquities  of 
America  by  giving  a  real  history  of 
their  construction,  Mrs.  Solomon  Spauld- 
Jng,  Miss  Spaulding,  John  Spaulding, 
Mrs.  John  Spaulding,  Wright,  Smith,  How- 
ard, and  Cunningham.  There  never  were 
but  two  books  that  had  this  feature.  The 
"Manuscript  Found"  and  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. IV.  It  assumed  that  the  Israelites 
were  the  aborigines  of  America.  J.  Spauld- 
ing, Mrs,  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Smith,  J. 
N.  Miller,  Wright,  Cunningham,  Jackson. 
There  were  never  but  two  books  that  had 
this  feature,  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the 
Manuscript  Found.  V.  That  they  left  Jeru- 
salem ;  J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding, 
Luke,  Milller,  Wright,  Smith,  Jackson. 
There  never  were  but  two  books,  the  Book 
of  Mormon  and  the  Manuscript  Found,  that 
had  this  feature.  VI.  Journeyed  by  land 
and  by  sea.  J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spauld- 
ing, Lake,  J.  N.  Miller,  Smith,  Jackson. 
There  never  were  but  two  books  that  had 
this  feature,  the  Manuscript  Found  and  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  VII.  Their  leaders 
were  Nephiand  Lehi.  Miss  Martha  Spauld- 
ing, Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Smith,  Quuning- 
ham  and  Jackson.  There,  never  were  but 
two  books  that  had  this  feature,  the  Manu- 
script Found  and  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
VIII.  They  quarreled  arid  divided  into 
two  parties  called  Nephites  and  Lamanites. 
J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Jackson. 
There  were  never  but  two  books  that  con- 
tained this  feature.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
and  the  Manuscript  Found.  IX.  There 
were  terrible  wara  between  the  Nephites 
and  Lamanites,  and  between  parties  into 
which  these  nations  divided.  J.  Spaulding, 
Mrs.  J.  Spaulduig;  Lake,  Jackson.  There 
never  but  two  books,  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  the  Manuscript  Found,  that  contained 
this  feature.  X.  They  buried  their  dead 
after  the  awful  slaughter  in  their  wars 
which  were  unprecedented,  in  great  heaps, 
which  caused  the  mounds.  J.  Spaulding. 
Mrs.  J.  Spaulding.  There  were  never  but 
two  books,  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the 
Manuscript  Found,  that  contained  this 
feature.  XT.  The  end  of  their  wars  in  two 
instances  was  the  total  annihilation,  in 
battle  of  all  but  one  who  escaped  to  make 
the  record  of  the  catastrophe.  Jackson. 
There  never  were  but  two  hooks,  the  Manu- 
script Found  and  the  Book  of  Mormon,  that 
contained  tnis  feature.  XII.  It  gives  a 
historical  account  of  the  civilization,  arts, 
sciences,  laws  and  customs  of  the  aborigines 
of  America.  J. Spaulding, Mrs. J. Spaulding, 
Miller,  Smith.  There  never  were  hue  two 
books,  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Manu- 
script Found,  that  contained  this  feature. 
XIII.  These  people  were  the  ancestors  of 
our  American  Indians.  J.Spauldiug,  Mrs. 


J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Wright.  There  never 
were  but  two  books,  the  Manuscript  Found 
and  the  Book  of  Mormon,  that  roiitained 
this  feature.  XIV.  The  names  Lehi, 
Nephi,  Lamanite,  Nephite,  Moroni,  Mor- 
mon, Zarahemla,  Laban.  Miss  Martha 
Spaulding,  J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding, 
Lake,  Smith,  J.  N.  Miller,  Wright,  Cun- 
ningham, Jackson.  There  never  was  but 
two  books,  the  Manuscript  Found  and  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  that  contained  these  fea- 
tures. XV.  These  in  every  instance  are 
the  names  of  the  same  persons  or  places 
or  things,  and  have  the  same  character- 
istics and  history,  etc.  J.  Spauldiug,  Mrs. 
J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Miller.  Wright,  Smith, 
Cunningham,  Jackson.  There  never  were 
but  two  books,  the  Manuscript  Found  and 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  that  had  this  feature. 
Xyi.  Written  in  scriptural  style.  Rigdon, 
Winter,  Spaulding,  Mrs.  S.  Spaulding, 
Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Jas.  Miller, 
Smith,  Cunningham,  Jackson.  There  never 
was  but  two  books,  the  size  of  either  of 
these  books,  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the 
Manuscript  Found,  thai  had  this  feature. 
Small  articles  have  been  so  written  for  bur- 
lesque but  never  such  large  books.  XVII. 
Absurd  repetition  of  "And  it  came  to 

§ass,"  "  And  now  it  came  to  pass."  Mrs. 
.  Spaulding,  J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spauld- 
ing, Lake,  Cunningham,  Jas.  Miller.  There 
never  were  but  two  books,  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon and  the  Manuscript  Found,  that  had 
were  this  feature.  XVIII.  One  party  lefl 
Jerusalem  to  escape  judgments  about  to 
over  take  the  Israelites.  Smith.  There  never 
were  two  books,  the  Manuscript  Found  and 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  that  contained  this 
feature.  XIX.  History  was  written  and1, 
buried  by  one  of  the  lo"st  people.  Mrs.  S. 
Spaulding.  There  never  were  but  two 
books  that  contained  this  feature,  the  Book 
of  Mormon  and  the  Manuscript  Found. 
XX.  The  book  was  obtained  from  thn 
earth.  Lake,  Mrs.  S.  Spaulding,  Cunning- 
ham. There  never  were  but  two  books 
claiming  to  be  translations  of  manuscript 
dug  out  of  the  earth,  the  Book  of  Mormoi/ 
and  the  Manuscript  Found.  XXI.  One 
party  of  emigrants  landed  near  the  Isth- 
mus of  Darien,  which  they  called  Zara- 
hemla, and  migrated  across  the  continent 
in  a  north-east  direction.  J.  N.  Miller. 
There  never  were  but  two  books  that  had 
this  feature,  the  Manuscript  Found  and  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  XXII.  In  a  battle  the 
Amlicites  marked  their  foreheads  with  a 
red  cross  so  that  they  could  distinguish 
themselves  from  their  enemies.  Jas.  Mil- 
ler, McKee.  There  never  were  but  two ' 
books  that  had  these  features,  the  Manu- 
script Found  and  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
XXIII.  The  hook  could  be,  and  as  an  addi- 
tion to  the  Bible  by  an  imposter,  as  an  ad- 
dition coming  from  America.  There  never 
were  but  two  books  that  had  this  feature, 
the  Manuscript  Found  and  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 

We   have   now   /mind    that   the    Book   of 
Mormon   and    the  Manuscript    Found  con 
taiued  twenty-three  features,  great  feature* 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


67 


exactly  alike.  Nothing  but  a  miracle, 
scarcely  credible,  could  have  caused  this 
agreement.  One  was  stoleu  from  the  other. 
The  Manuscript  Found  was  iu  existence 
fifteen  years  before  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
It  is  as  certain  that  the  Book  of  Mormon 
was  stolen  from  the  Manuscript  Found  as 
that  a  child  is  the  offspring  of  its  parents. 

Nearly  all  of  our  witnesses  are  careful  to 
state  that  the  religions  portion  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  was  not  in  the  Manuscript 
Found.  We  will  prove  that  Sidney  Rtgdou 
Interpolated  that  into  the  manuscript  that 
he  stole.  That  will  refute  the  objection 
raised  by  the  three.  I'd  Joseph ,  that  a  Pres- 
byterian  preacher  would  not  write  such 
religious  sentiments  as  those  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  Nearly  all  of  the  witnesses  in 
their  descriptions  mention  only  the  historic 
part  of  the  Nephite  portion  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  This  shows  ^tnat  Spaulding  had 
written  only  that  portion,  in  his  first  manu- 
script. This  meets  a  Mormon  objection 
that  some  portions  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
were  not  mentioned  by  the  witnesses. 

We  will  now  notice*some  of  the  retorts  of 
Mormonism  to  this  testimony.  I.  It  is 
"the  Spaulding  story"  So  Antideluvians 
sneered  at  Noah  about  his  "flood  story,"  but 
the  flood  overwhelmed  them  allthe  same. 
Such  evidence,  given  by  seventeen  witnesses 
can  not  be  sneered  down  even  by  the 
prophet,  the  three.  Id  Joseph,  as.,  "the 
Spaulding  story,"  II.  "  It  is  all  a  pack  of 
lies."  Why  is  it  a  pack  of  lies?  Do  they 


attempt  to  impeach  the  witnesses?  No. 
Do  they  attempt  to  rebut  the  testimony? 
No.  They  jabber  the  great  Mormon  argu- 
ment. "It  is  a  pack  of  lies."  III.  The 
three  Id  Joseph  says  there  is  collusion  in 
the  testimony.  He  knew  he  was  penning  a 
falshood  when  he  wrote  that  sentence. 
There  neverwereseventeen  witnesses  whose 
testimony  was  more  independent,  and 
marked  with  each  one's  personality  than 
these.  Contrast  the  seventeen  independent 
statements,  in  which  the  individuality  of 
each  person  appears,  with  the  witnesses  to 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  They  sign  a  joint 
statement  written  out  by  Imposter  Joe. 

IV.  It   is   improbable    that  they   would 
know  so  much  of  the  manuscript.     We  have 
given   the  reasons  why  so  many   persons 
heard  so  much  of  the  Manuscript  Found. 

V.  It  is  impossible  that  they  would  remem- 
ber so  much.    The   testimony  shows   that 
they    were    persons    of  more    than    usual 
mental  power,  with  clear  strong  intellects. 
The  contents   of   the  manuscript  were  so 
peculiar  that  they  would  be  remembered 
and  recognized,  when  heard  again,  as  the 
nick  name  old  "  Come  to  pass"  and  the  ex- 
clamation of  Squire  Wright  "Old  come  to 
pass,  has  come  to  life,"  show.    VI.    It  is 
religious  persecution.    There  was   no  sug- 
gestion of  an  attempt  at  religious  persecu- 
tion.   Nor  do  the  statements  show  any  such 
spirit.    They  are  remarkably  ctvlui  and  un- 
sectariau  iu  toue. 


MR.   KELLEY'S   SEVENTH    SPEECH. 


GEXTT,EMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
G  ENTLEMEN: — Last  evening  I  took  consider- 
able time  in  presenting  to  you  some  of  the 
evidences  contained  in  the  works  of  arch- 
ueologists  and  explorers  of  the  ancient  ruins 
and  the  remains  of  the  extinct  civilizations 
of  the  American  continent;  showing  that 
the  extent  and  greatness  of  them  was  equal 
to  that  given  in  the  history,  of  the  three 
civilizations  which  had  existed  here,  two  of 
them  contemporaneous,  as  represented  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  I  was  answered  by  my 
opponent  at  the  time  with  this:  "That 
those  things  were  known  to  the  world  and 
were  accessible  to  Joseph  Smith  at  the 
time  of  the  publication  of  the  book;"  and 
for  proof  he  cited  to  Josiah  Priest's  work, 
which  he  said  treated  of  these  things  and 
which  was  published  it  was  averred,  prior 
to  the  publicationof  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
I  did  not  state  then  that  1  did  not  believe  it, 
for  I  was  taught  by  my  mother  not.  t.n  sav 


a  thing  was  not  true  until  I  had  tested  it ; 
and  I  nave  made  no  statement  to  this  audi- 
ence but  what  I  believed  to  be  as  true  as 
that  the  sun  has  thisday  been  on  his  daily 
course.  Neither  do  I  expect  to  state  to  this 
audience  anything  but  what  I  believe  to  be 
true,  and  strictly  true.  But  to  his,  Priest's 
work: — I  asked  for  the  book  and  examined 
it.  Instead  of  finding  a  work  that  treats 
upon  antiquities,  or  civilizations,  such  as  I 
have  proven  to  nave  existed,  I  found  that 
the  book  did  not  contain  a  single  thing  upon 
these; — neither  speculations  upon  ruined 
cities  or  a  hiffh  state  of  enlightenment,  nor 
a  single  mound  referred  to  from  which  con- 
clusio.is  of  a  great  civilization  could  be 
drawn; — not  one  single  thing  that  tends  to 
disprove  a  single  statement  that  I  dweir  i?p- 
on  lust  evening:  and  yet,  you  are  expected 
to  accept  it  as  an  answer  to  my  argument. 
The  work  does  not  treat  upon  antiquarian  re- 
searches eveu:  but  it  is  Mr.  Priest's  oornni- 


68 


THE  BRADEN-  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


lation  of  certain  things,  entitled  the  "Won- 
ders of  Heaven  and  Earth."  I  stated  in  my 
opening  remarks  upon  last  evening-  that  it 
was  speculative,  long1  prior  to  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  that  the  ten 
lost  tribes  of  Israel  had  been  led  to  this 
country,  and  that  afterwards  they  had 
dwindled  into  barbarism;  and  showed  also 
that  the  common  theory  was  that  when  the 
country  was  settled  it  was  settled  from 
north  to  south,  and  that,  that  was  one  of  the 
main  theories  at  the  time  of  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  I  open  this 
book  that  treats  of  the  wonders  of  earth  and 
heaven,  and  find  an  article  referring  to  the 
ten  tribes  coming  to  this  continent,  giving 
the  writer's  speculations  from  what  had 
been  ascertained  by  conversing  with  the  na- 
tives; and  there  is  a  longargument  in  it  from 
page  297  forward  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  people  who  inhabited  this  country, 
and  of  whom  the  Indians  were  descendants, 
were  the  lost  tribes,  as  I  had  admitted  in 
my  opening  argument  upon  these  antiquit- 
ies, statin":  that  such  were  the  speculations. 
But  there  is  not  a  single  work  or  mound  cit- 
ed in  this  book  to  prove  it,  or  that  the  peo- 
ple attained  a  high  state  of  civilization  and 
builded  great  cities,  etc.,  here  as  was  my  ar- 
gument. But,  turning  to  the  book,  page 
201,  I  find  that  the  speculation  is  here  set 
out  also,  that  they  crossed  at  Behrings 
Strait,  as  I  had  claimed  upon  last  evening, 
and  afterward  made  their  way  southward. 
IsTot  only  that,  buton  turning  further  in  this 
book  I  find  some  excellent  things  to  show 
that  the  people  upon  this  continent  were  of 
Israelitish  origin,  one  of  which  is  plainly 
and  clearly  set  out,  wherein  it  states 
that  they'  formerly  practiced  circum- 
cision on  the  continent.  I  call  the 
attention  of  my  opponent  to  that, 
because  he  challenged  me  to  show 
upon  a  former  evening,  that  any  such  thing 
as  circumcision  had  been  practiced  upon 
this  continent.  That  is  a  proof  from  his 
own  work.  Will  he  take  his  own  witness? 
I  refer  to  this  fact  of  the  Saint's  actual  po- 
sition upon  this  for  the  reason,  that  I  do 
not  wish  you  to  misunderstand  my  position 
upon  the  point.  While  there  were  many 
speculations  in  regard  to  whether  the  In- 
dians were  the  first  inhabitants  of  Amer- 
ica, and  how  they  came  here,  at  the  time  of 
the  publication  of  this  book,  as  I  have  be- 
fore stated,  there  was  no  understanding 
iind  no  knowledge  extant  in  the  world  of 
the  grand  civilization  that  had  occupied 
here,  that  outnumbered  by  thousands  and 
millions  the  present  population  of  the  coun- 
try, if  we  are  permitted  to  judge  at  all  from 
the  ruins  and  the  discoveries  that  have 
been  made  since  that  time,  and  of  the  great 
enlightenment  of  the  people.  I  expected 
to  have  collated  to-day  and  presented 
to  you  this  evening  a  concise  account  by 
the  best  authors  of  just  when  this  knowl- 
edge was  first  developed  and  published  to 
the  world  through  explorers,  and  I  shall 
do  so  upon  to-morrow  or  some  future  even- 
ing ;  showing  that  it  was  not  known  to  the 
world  prior  to  1834.  There  was  one  English 


publication  in  1822,  but  it  was  never  known 
in  this  part  of  the  world,  and  not  widely 
in  any  ;  and  I  doubt  if  there  is  a  man  in  the 
State  of  Ohio, — well,  there  possibly  has 
been  one  in  the  State  of  Ohio, — but  certainly 
not  many  more,  who  ever  saw  such  a  work 
or  such  an  author  as  that  of  Fuentes  or  Del 
Rio.  Mr.  Stephens,  whom  I  cited  last 
evening,  and  who  wrote  in  1841,  a  traveler 
all  over  this  globe,  and  a  man  that  was 
versed  not  only  in  the  English  language, 
but  in  the  Spanish  also,  in  which  Del  Rio's 
work  was  originally  written,  had  never 
heard  of  it  at  the  time  he  first  went  to 
Mexico  in  1839.  But  suppose  that  they  had 
heard  of  the  publication  of  the  work,  and 
that  it  had  been  all  over  the  country  in 
1822,  and  that  it  contained  any  thing  of  these 
great  cities  : — what  would  it  benefit  my  op- 
ponent in  this  argument?  His  claim  is  that 
this  "  Romance"  was  written  by  one  Solo- 
mon Spaulding  in  4811.  Well,  if  it  was 
written  in  1811,  and  the  historical  part  of  it 
gotten  up  by  Mr.  Spaulding,  could  Mr. 
Spaulding  write  correctly  of  these  things 
when  he  did  not  know  about  them  unless 
he  was  a  prophet?  Why  not  God  inspire 
Smith  to  write  and  antedate  these  discov- 
eries as  well  as  Spaulding?  The  argument 
is,  that  neither  Smith  nor  Spaulding  could 
get  these  things  out,  for  the  manuscript  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  as  they  are  described 
therein  as  early  as  the  year  1829,  (or  1811). 
and  as  they  have  since  been  found  correct 
by  the  best  authors.  Not  only  that,  but  I 
read  fully  from  the  most  authentic  writers 
in  support  of  the  statements  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  which  was  copyrighted  and  in 
the  hands  of  the  printer  as  early  as  the 
first  part  of  the  year  1829,  on  the  question 
of  the  high  state  of  the  ancient  civilizations 
of  the  continent ;  the  magnificence  of  their 
cities,  temples,  palaces  and  works  of  art; 
their  high  attainments  in  the  sciences,  me- 
chanical skill  and  inventions  ;  and  of  the 
fauna  as  presented  in  the  later-discovered 
fossils,  etc.  This  however,  was  sneered  at 
as  though  everybody  knew  of  that,  long 
before  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  printed, 
and  that  Smith  could  easily  have  located 
his  Central  American  cities ;  told  of  the 
three  different  highly  civilized  peoples  who 
had  lived  there ;  told  what  domestic  ani- 
mals they  had,  and  what  places  on  the  con- 
tinent these  people  first  inhabited  from 
such  general  knowledge,  and  thus  had 
practiced  a  fraud  upon  the  world.  Now. 
my  friends,  nearly  sixty  years  have  passed 
since  the  book  was  published,  with  new 
discoveries  being  continually  brought  to 
light,  and  in  an  age  when  the  means  of 
transmission  of  news  and  know  ledge  was 
never  so  perfect  it  is  thought  ;  aa  gifted 
men  as  the  times  have  produced,  have  given 
their  attention  and  attainments  to  the  re- 
search and  development  of  these  things, 
and  the  result  is,  they  have  gained  no  new 
light  upon  this  subject,  that  was  not  possi- 
ble for  a  poor,  unlettered  boy  in  the  back- 
woods of  New  York  State  to  gathe-r  and 
compile  into  a  book  in  1827  and  1828. 
Friends,  can  you  swallow  ihat?  If  you 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


can,  it  is  possible  you  may  swallow  down 
and  roll  as  a  sweet  morsel  under  the  tongue 
the  Spaulding  tale,  "Old  come  to  pass," 
and  all.  What!  says  one,  have  not  these 
new  authors  who  have  been  publishing  for 
the  past  fifty  years  unfolded  something 
oew  as  to  the  civilization  that  is  not  to  be 
rained  by  reading  the  Book  of  Mormon? 
Nor  anything  either,  that  has  been  estab- 
lished as  a  truth  that  is  conflicting  with,  or 
contrary  to,  that  book  ?  I  answer  they 
have  not ;  and  the  book  is  full  and  explicit 
upon  the  civilizations.  Will  my  opponent 
please  show  the  new  light  or  the  fact  of  the 
difference  or  contradiction  to  the  audience 
if  they  have?  One  demonstrable  fact  thus 
brought,  which  will  show  a  statement  in 
the  book  false,  will  have  more  weight  with 
eny  honest  investigator,  than  tsn  thous- 
and Spaulding  stories,  all  laid,  brooded, 
hatched,  raised  and  palmed  upon  the  world 
years  after  the  publication  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 

This  is  his  position  fairly  stated :  The 
Book  of  Mormon  was  in  press  in  1829,  and 
sent  out  as  a  publication  in  1830. — A  few 
persons  under  the  guidance  and  leadership 
of  one  Philaster  Hulburt,  who,  at  the  time 
had  been  cut  off  from  the  church  of  the 
Latter  Day  Saints  for  bad  conduct,  and  who 
had  publicly  confessed  his  crime  and  had 
l>een  taken  back  upon  his  profession  of  re- 
pentance as  I  will  show  you  by  the  church 
publications  at  the  time,  and:  was  again 
cut  off;  and  a  few  others  at  Conneaut, 
-Ohio,  of  a  like  stamp,  got  together  in  1833, 
with  the  Book  of  Mormon  in  their  hands 
and  vengeance  and  hatred  in  their  hearts, 
and  got  up  some  affidavits  as  to  a  story 
which  it  was  surmised  had  been  written 
before  by  Solomon  Spaulding,  a  broken 
down  clergyman  of  that  place.-  Afterwards 
they  found  a  confederate  in  Mr.  Howe,  of 
Painsville,'  Ohio,  who  was  terribly  mad  and 
jealous  because  his  wife  and  sister  had 
joined  the  church  here  in  Kirtland,  and  so 
(between  Hulburt  and  Howe  and  these 
testifiers,  they  published  their  tale  between 
the  years  1834  and  1841,  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
with  that  book  in  their  hands  from  which 
to  make  their  garbled  statemenis.  There- 
fore, he  concludes  the  thieving  Joseph 
Smith  who  was  always  an  honest  and 
honorable  man.  stole  the  Book  of  Mormon 
from  the  Spaulding  story  and  made  of  the 
theft  a  Bible.  This  is  logic  for  you  with  a 
rush  !  Who  again  will  doubt  that  my  op- 
ponent is  a  profound  logician?  But  I  have 
yet  to  give  you  the  rich  part  of  his  tale. 
A  few  of  the  best  citizens  of  Ohio,  at  Con- 
neaut, got  together  one  night  and  appointed 
one  of  their  beloved  number,  to  wit,  the 
said  Dr.  Hulburt,  who  had  before  been 
ostracised  from  the  Latter  Day  Saints  for 
an  open  insult  to  a  young  lady  in  Kirtland. 
to  go  to  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and 
other  places,  to  get  statements  from  other 
first  citizens  of  the  country  (like  to  them- 
selves), and  .get  up  a  story  to  beat  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  Did  you  ever  before  hear 
of  so  many  of  the  first  citizens  of  the 


country  living  near  by  you,  who  were  never 
known  outside  of  their  neighborhood,  ex- 
cept by  the  work  of  evil  they  did  by  signing 
false  statements  ?  His  idea  of  best'citizen  is 
from  the  standpoint  of  whether  they  are 
on  "our  side  ;"  not  from  a  single  truth  he 
knows.  But  let  me  right  here  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  he  has  not  even 
presented  the  testimony  of  a  single  one  of 
these  best  citizens  he  refers  to  in  full.  Not 
a  single  statement.  Not  even  the  poor 
show  of  reading  to  you  a  written  statement 
in  full  of  a  single  one  of  them.  Not  even 
the  offer  to  read  you  a  single  affidavit  of 
one  of  these  "best  citizens."  I  am  here 
to  examine  the  evidence  in  this  discussion, 
and  if  he  has  any  statements,  or  affidavits, 
I  want  him  to  read  them  here,  and  give  the 
people  a  chance  to  judge  and  me  a  chance 
to  examine  them.  I  deny,  sir,  that  you  can 
produce  affidavits  or  respectable  statements 
proving  the  statements  and  assertions  you 
read  last  night ;  and  demand  the  evidence. 
Not  a  few  lines  from  the  witnesses  but  the 
testimony.  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
this  opponent  is  the  first  I  ever  met  who 
would  stand  before  an  audience  and  tell 
and  rehearse  what  he  says,  somebody  else 
said,  old  mother  Grundy  said  about  what 
somebody  else  said  and  did^  and  then  ask 
his  audience  to  take  it  for  evidence.  What 
would  you  think  of  an  attorney,  who  after 
rehearsing  his  case  to  the  jury  or  judge, 
without  ever  offering  to  introduce  a  wit- 
ness or  read  a  record  except  in  extracts, 
would  stand  up  and  claim  he  had  put  his 
evidence  in,  and  ask  for  a  verdict  in  his,  fa- 
vor? Can  you  not  see,  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
he  has  not  proven  a  single  thing?  What 
evidence  has  he  presented  to  you  upon  any 
matter?  Mention,  any  of  you  who  can. 
Oh,  says  one,  he  gave  us  Mr.  Rudolph's 
testimony.  Did  he  ?  I  have  not  seen  it  or 
heard  it  read.  I  heard  what  Braden  said 
Rudolph  said  Sidney  Rigdon  did  ;  -but  what 
do  you  know  about  it?  Mr.  Rudolph  is 
near  here,  if  he  knows  anything,  put  him 
on  this  stand  :  you  claim  him  as  one  of  your 
own  men,  a  Disciple  Preacher.  I  want  to 
examine  him  if  his  name  is  to  be  used, 
since  he  is  near  by  and  can  be  had.  The 
only  request  I  will  have  in  the  matter  is 
that  the  evidence  shall  be  taken  on  extra 
time  ;  and  that  we  do  not  take  up  the  hour 
named  for  discussion.  I  deny  here  that 
Mr.  Rudolph  knows  a  single  fact  which  can 
in  the  remotest  degree  connect  Sidney  Rig- 
don with  Joseph  Smith  or  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  prior  to  the  time  when  Sidney 
Rigdon  was  converted  to  the  faith  of  the 
Saints  in  the  last  part  of  the  year  1830. 
And  I  make  this  statement  fearlessly,  after 
having  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Ru- 
dolph on  the  subject  of  the  book  myself  last 
summer. 

Another  thing:  I  state  fearlessly  before 
you  that  Mr.  Howe  of  Painsville,  who  rlrst 
published  the  Spaulding  story  and  the  affi- 
davits which  were  gotten  up  to  blacken  the 
character  of  Joseph  Smith,  f-idney  Rigdon, 
et  al.,  and  whose  book  is  the  key  note  from 
which  all  subseauent  works  have  taken 


70 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


their  music,  does  not  know  one  thing1,  not  a 
single  fact  that  can  be  made  in  the  least  to 
connect  that  Spaulding  story  with  the  Book 
of  Mormon   or   show   that   Joseph   Smith's 
character  was  bad  ;  or  that  a  single  affida- 
vit in  his  book  is  true.     Will  you  put  him 
on  the  stand  here  for  examination  ?    I  will 
bear  the  expense  of  bringing  him  here  as 
he  is  a  little  farther  away  than  Mr.  Rudolph. 
I  do  not  make  these  assertions  for  bluff',  or 
effect ;  but  for  the  reason  that  the  world  has 
thought  Mr.  Howe  knew  something  about 
the  matter,  or  he  would  not  have  published 
the  book  which  forms  the  basis  of  all  other 
lying  works;  and  if  he  does  know  anything 
now  is  the  time  to  find  it  out.    One  other 
thing.    It  has  been  asserted  here  that  he 
has  a  chain  of  evidence.    A  chain  of  evi- 
dence!    What   is    it    to    make    a  chain  of 
evidence?    Can  you  use  broken  or  pieces  of 
links?    Has  Mr*.   Braden  debated    all    his 
life  and  has  not  yet  found  out  that  to  form  a 
circumstance  or  truth,  that  the  evidence  of 
such  circumstance  or  truth  must  be  com- 
plete within  itself  and  independent  of  anoth- 
er   fact   or  circumstance  which  he  claims 
to  form  another  link?    Each  must  be  com- 
plete of  itself  to  be  evidence  and  constitute 
a  chain.    For  illustration  :    It  is  said  here 
by  him  that  at  one  time  a  niece  of  Sidney 
Rigdon  once  saw  him  go  to  an  old   trunk, 
take  out  a  manuscript,  go  to  the  fire  place 
ami  read  it,  and  that  he  would  not  let  her 
f e  i  it.    Suppose  this  is  all  true  as  the  story 
£Oes ;  what  of  it?    Is  it  pertinent  to  the 
issue  until  they  in   some  manner  connect 
that  same  manuscript  with  the  one  claimed 
by  Spaulding?    Why!    Rigdon  might  have 
had  a  hundred  manuscripts  and  read  them, 
and  taken  them  from  an  old  trunk,  and  put 
them    back     without    first    having    given 
them   to  his   niece  to  read,  and  each  and 
eveiy  one  of  them  altogether  different  from 
the  Spaulding  manuscript;  and  if  any  such 
unconnected  statement  was  offered  as  evi- 
dence   in   any  court    to    sustain   the  most 
trivial  case,  it  would  instantly  be  ruled  as 
improper    Before  this  can  be  made  evidence 
the  parties  must  also  show  by  some  other 
fact,  or  thing,  that  the  rnanui-cript  which  he 
is  said  to  have  read  and  would  not  let  his 
nie«  e  we  wax  Ifir  Span  I  ding  Romance,  and 
then  they  may  use  it  all  as  a  link  to  show 
that    Iligdon  'did   have   an  opportunity  of 
copying  the  Spaulding  manuscript.    Don't 
you    know    that    if    Sidney     Rigdon     did 
have   the  Spat  Iding   manuscript  it  is  just 
pos»ii  .e   he   had   another   besides:  mother 
Grundy's  manuscript,  a  manuscript  sermon, 
or   manuscript  a»-t'<.|r  for  publication,  and 
tha   at  the  time  his  n'°ce  saw  him  he  was 
reading  mot    er  Grundy  or  one  of  the  other 
manuscripts  inau;i.u  o.     paulding?    What 
then   would   be  the    true    position    of   my 
opponent  in   this  argument?    Mr  Braden 
offering    to    show    that    Risrdon     had    the 
Bpaulding  manuscript  by  citing  the  time  he 
read    mother    Urundy's    manuscript,    and 
offering  ihe  people  a  false  thing  as  evidence 
and  asking  them  to  accept  it  as  true  instead 
of  accepting  the  facts     Take  another  one   I 
of    his   uroofs  (?).     Mr.    Iludolph    says,    so 


Braden  says,  that  one  time  during  the  year 
1827,  Sidney  Rigdou,  who  was  their  pastor 
at  Mentor,  Ohio,  went  off  some  place  and 
was  away  two  or  three  weeks  and  they  did 
not  know  where  he  went  to.  It  might  have 
been  over  to  Hiram,  down  to  Mantua,  to 
Cleveland  or  Cincinnati ;  but  no  difference 
to  him  ;  he  will  have  it  at  this  very  time  he 
was  in  the  wilds  of  Pennsylvania  or  New 
York,  concocting  the  Book  of  Mormon 
with  Joseph  Smith.  Where  is  his  witnesses 
showing  where  Rigdon  was  at  this  time,  or 
that  he  was  in  New  York?  There  is  none, 
nor  never  has  been.  Now  according  to  their 
idea  Smith  has  no  rights  that  even  a  rogue 
is  bound  to  respect ;  and  soif  they  can  show 
that  their  pastor  Rigdon  was  out  on  a  spree. 
Smith  will  have  to  bear  the  blame.  My 
friends,  don't  you  know  that  it  \vould  sink 
any  man,  prophet,  priest,  or  king,  to  under- 
take to  make  of  him  a  scapegoat  to  carry 
away  the  sins  of  many  pastors  of  the 
Campbellite  Church. 

But  I  have  only  been  arguing  the  matter 
in  this  suppositions  form— sifting  it; — when 
I  come  to  ask  for  the  evidence,  I  find  out 
the  whole  thing  is  trumped  up  to  defeat 
Sidney  Rigdon  because  he  left  their  church. 
I  shall  now  present  to  you  a  supposable  case 
upon  facts  proven,  arid  ask  you  to  compare 
the  two  methods  of  argument.  Upon  the 
part  of  the  affirmative  I  have  shown  that 
John  the  Revelator,  in  the  14th  chapter  and 
6th  verse  oT  his  book,  says:  "And  I  saw 
another  angel  fly  in  the  midst  of  heaven 
having  the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  unto 
them  that  dwell  on  the  earth,  and  to  every 
nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  peo- 
ple, saying  with  a  loud  voice,  Fear  God, 
and  give  glory  to  him ;  for  the  hour  of  his 
judgment  is  come:  and  worship  him  that 
made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
the  fountains  of  waters."  I  use  this  to  sup- 

fort  the  truth  of  my  claim.  But  how?  1. 
show  by  it,  the  time  that  is  referred  to, 
"  The  hour  of  God's  judgment."  2.  That  it 
was  to  be  after  John's  time,  or  the  year  A. 
D.  96,  by  turning  to  the  preceding  chapters. 
Rev.  1 : 19,  4 : 1,  and  22 : 6.  3.  That  the  hour 
of  the  judgment  is  the  same  as  defined  in. 
Matt.  13  by  Jesus.  And  it  is  "just  afore 
the  harvest,"  the  same  time  referred  to  in 
Isaiah  18,  when  the  ensign  is  lifted  up  ;  and 
that  the  ensign  of  God  is  the  gospel  of 
Christ;  this  is  what  he  calls  men  to  look  to, 
saying,  "  Repent  ye  and  believe  the  gos- 
pel ;"  and  since  it  is  the  gospel  and  lifted 
up  at  tne  same  time  that  John  saw  the  angel 
bringing  it,  I  must  conclude  they  are  the 
same  in  teaching  at  least,  for  there  is  but 
one  gospel.  4.  Then,  when  I  notice  that  the 
same  time  arid  event  is  spoken  of  in  both, 
as  in  Isaiah  29,  and  Ezekiel  37,  where  the 
message  and  event  is  represented  as  a  book 
that  should  be  brought  to  light  which 
should  contain  "doctrine,"  and  (connected 
with  its  publication),  understanding  at- 
tained, and  the  power  of  God  brought  to 
light,  as  was  the  gospel  when  it  was  in  the 
world  in  its  fullness  before,  as  Paul  says: — 
"Our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word 
only,  but  in  power  aud  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


71 


and  in  much  assurance;"  (1  Thess  1:5), 
and  tliat  tliis  is  the  same  work  specifically 
set  forth  as  in  the  other  texts,  time,  place 
and  conditions  each  being  complete  of  them- 
selves and  agreeing  in  all  their  phases,  and 
that  there  is  no  reasonable  interpretation  or 
application  of  the  prophecies  agreeing  with 
any  other  time,  place,  thing  or  event,  I  con- 
clude that  they  all  refer  to  the  same  thing, 
and  that  that  thing  is  the  gospel  which  is 
to  be  again  committed  to  the  eatth  at  the 
time,  "just  afore  the  harvest;"  in  "the  hour 
of  His  judgment,"  and  hence  committed 
again  sometime  after  the  apostles'  time,  and 
•which  may  be  in  our  own  time,  and  must 
be  in  this  or  hereafter,  for  the  harvest  spo- 
ken of  has  not  yet  come.  Having  made 
such  a  connected  chain  as  this,  every  link 
beiiiir  in  itself  complete,  since  they  all  refer 
to  a  like, or  the  same  thing,  and  that  thing  has 
a  complete  likeness  in  the  coming  forth  and 
teaching  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  no 
other  book  known  to  men  will  answer  to  the 
fulfillment  as  this,  and  the  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world  as  predicted  has  arrived 
for  the  fulfillment,  I  say  it  is  logical  to  con- 
clude, and  the  evidence  irresistible  as  show- 
ing that  this  is  the  prophetic  work,  not- 
withstanding Satan's  old  cry  of  deceiver. 

How  about  his  Spaulding  story  as  com- 
pared with  this  logical  deduction  from  ad- 
mitted facts?  In  the  argument  of  a  propo- 
sition or  the  trial  of  an  issue,  there  is  what 
is  termed  an  affirmative  and  a  negative  ;  a 
plaintiff  and  a  defendant.  One  who  affirms 
the  truth  of  a  matter  and  who  must  bring 
evidence  to  sustain  this,  and  one  who  de- 
nies the  sufficiency  or  application  of  the 
evidence,  or  else,  admitting  the  statements 
of  the  one  who  affirms  to  be  correct,  he  denies 
the  conclusion,  for  the  reason  that  some- 
thing else  is  true  which  must  destroy  the 
correctness  of  the  plaintiff's  conclusion. 
This  other  tiling  or  averment  is  what  is 
termed  an  alibi,  and  may  properly  be  made 
the  defense  in  certain  cases.  But  in  other 
cases  it  cannot.  For  illustration :  I  set 
forth  my  claim  and  title  to  a  certain  piece 
of  land,  showing  patent  from  the  govern- 
ment, all  due  and  legal  transfers  by  proper 
conveyance ;  show  that  this  patent  and  all 
transfers  and  steps  of  entry  and  possession 
are  strictly  in  harmony  and  keeping  with  the 
law, — it  would  hardly  be  worth  while  for 
another  to  bring  a  suit  to  oust  me  under  the 
plea  that,  it  is  true,  he  is  properly  entitled 
under  the  chain  of  title  and  I  cannot  break 
that  claim,  but  then  John  Doe  had  a  correct 
chain  of  title  too,  at  one  time,  to  a  piece  of 
land,  and  it  is  defendant's  belief  that  plain- 
tiff ought  to  be  kept  out  of  possession  for 
the  reason  that  John  Doe  now  does  not  know 
what  kind  of  land  his  was  nor  where  it  is. 
No  judge  would  for  a  moment  hesitate  to 
say  that  not  even  an  issue  had  been  formed 
by  such  a  plea.  If  my  chain  of  title  could 
not  be  broken,  no  amount  of  alibi's  would 
help  the  matter  in  the  case.  That  which  is 
conclusive  to  the  proving  of  a  fact,  which 
fact  establishes  the  conclusion  of  a  proposi- 
tion, cannot  be  overcome  by  an  attempt  to 
prove  some  other  fact :  for  the  reason  that 


it  is  a  contradiction  to  suppose  that  two 
facts  exist  and  one  the  opposite  of  the  other. 

To  defeat  my  title  to  the  laud  then,  tha 
defendant  would  be  compelled  to  break  the 
chain,  and  this  would  form  a  direct  contest. 
In  the  discussion  of  the  proposition  before 
this  audience,  as  the  one  affirming,  T  had 
the  right  to  set  out  my  claim  ; — chain  of  title; 
make  it  full  and  complete  ur»der  the  law; 
and  my  opponent's  right  was  to  break  this 
chain,  and  under  the  law  he  must  do  so  or 
fail;  for  the  conclusion  of  the  law  is,  that 
he  who  comes  bringing  this  chain  is  true, 
for  no  man  can  get  hold  of  the  chain  unless 
he  is  the  true  and  accepted  one. 

God  has  set  this  seal  upon  it;  man  un- 
derstands the  things  of  man  by  the  spirit 
of  man  which  is  in  him;  "even  so  the 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God."  I  Cor.  2:11.  For  this 
reason  in  determining  who  are  of  God  and 
who  are  not,  you  may  safely  rely  upon  the 
rule,  "He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the 
Son."  2  John,  9th  verse.  He  has  established 
a  law  that  man  without  the  Spirit  of  God 
cannot  look  into  his  truth  which  is  from 
above,  and  so  select  from  it  as  to  impose  upon 
the  people  and  at  the  same  time  conform 
to  the  truth.  Jesus  recognizes  the  rule  as 
being  correct  in  the  28th  chapter  of  Mat- 
thew's gospel,  wherein  he  tells  his  diciples, 
if  they  teach  all  things  whatsoever  he  has 
commanded  them  he  will  be  with  them  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  He  did  not  even 
promise  to  be  with  Peter,  and  James,  and 
John  unless  they  proved  their  mission  by 
abiding  in  the  doctrine  Not  a  part  of  it,  but 
all  of  it,  for  this  rule  was  to  be  given  to  his 
people  and  the  world  to  tebt  the  true  from 
the  false  ;  true  teachers  from  faise  teachers ; 
true  prophets  from  false  prophets.  "If  any 
man  think  himself  a  prophet  or  spiritual," 
says  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  14:37,  "let  him  ac- 
knowledge that  the  things  that  I  write 
unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord."  Not  acknowledge  by  mouth  through 
dissimulation  simply, — but  let  his  teachings 
conform  to  the  established  test,  and  agree 
in  all  things  with  that  which  rtiul  had 
written.  "  He  that  is  of  God  hearetn  God's 
words;"  and  in  all  things.  "Beware  of 
false  prophets  who  come  to  you  in  sheep's 
clothing;  by  their  fruits  you  shall  know 
them."  Not  judging  their  public  acts  by 
their  doings  in  private  life,  nor  by  the  lives 
of  their  followers;  for  this  would  destroy 
the  entire  list: — Noah,  Moses,  Sam*on, 
David,  Solomon,  Elijah,  Peter  and  Paul ; 
and  judging  simply  by  the  fruits  of  tin  fol- 
lowers, it  would  also  prove  an  false,  .Ie-us 
and  the  apostles  ;  for  all,  except  the  i  i  v'e 
went  back  at  one  time  ;  Judas,  OIH-  <;i  i  use, 
turned  traitor  and  sold  Je^us :  another, 
denied  him  and  cursed  and  swore  ;  H  '  re- 
turned to  their  nets ;  and  Thomaf  «  ao 
far  gone  that  he  said  he  would  not  Ix-iieve, 
unless  "he  should  first  thrust  his  hands 
into  his  side,"  while  some  in  the  chisn-nfj 
in  a  short  timo  were  guilty  of  such  H  Domi- 
nations as  were  not  known,  the  a 
Paul  says,  among:  the  Gentile*.  ,->./. 


72 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


of  those  in  Asia,  Jesus  signifies  to  his  ser- 
vant John,  that  some  were  so  wicked  and 
corrupt,  that  unless  they  repented  they 
Bhould  "  be  brought  down  to  hell."  To 
fudge  them  then  in  this  way  would  be 
wrong; — contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  I 
will  show  you  the  way  to  judge  men  by 
their  fruits.  If  those  principles  they  teach 
are  bad  ;  or  men  or  women  are  bad  who  are 
living  "in  accord  with,  and  carrying  out  in 
their  lives  the  principles  taught,  then  it 
will  prove  the  one  bringing  the  message  to 
be  bad,  and  at  the  same  time  prove  themes- 
sage  bad.  The  argument  is  often  made 
that  the  Christian  religion  is  bad  because 
those  professing  Christianity  are  bad.  This 
is  not  a  correct  premise.  Before  the  conclu- 
sion follows,  it  must  be  further  shown  that, 
in  bringing  forth  this  bad  fruit,  they  who 
call  themselves  Christians  did  these  bad 
things  by  conforming  to  the  principles  and 
teachings  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Now,  in  this  discussion,  from  the  first,  my 
opponent  has  chosen  to  leave  the  arguments 
of  the  affirmative  and  follow  his  own 
course;  and  he  has  attempted  to  crush  me 
under  the  weight  of  the  stories  he  had  at 
his  command  against  the  character  of  Mr. 
Smith.  What  a  ridiculous  position  !  If  my 
claim  is  true  it  is  true,  and  no  number  of 
alibi's  could  affect  it  gotten  up  on  life  or 
character. 

But  by  taking  this  course  he  virtually 
admits  the  position  of  the  affirmative 
to  be  unmovable ;  because  if  he  could 
move  me  what  is  the  useof  Ms  alibi  ? 
I  am  *  affirming  and  must  make  my 
case.  He  simply  denies ;  he  does  not 
in  the  proposition  set  up  a  counter  case, 
claim,  or  tii  Jig.  And  yet  he  has  chosen  to 
introduce  the  alibi  of  the  old  Spaulding 
Romance  ;  (and  romance  it  is),  and  to  rely 
upon  that,  either  as  a  counter  proof  suffici- 
ent, or  as  a  means  of  prejudicing  the  people 
against  an  investigation  of  the  facts.  What- 
ever the  object  it  matters  not  to  me;  but  I 
take  it  that  by  so  doing  he  has  admitted  as 
true  the  position  of  the  plain  tiff  in  the  con- 
test and  now  rests  his  case  upon  character, 
and  the  "  Spaulding  Romance." 

Does  he  not  know  that  his  very  act  in 
doing  this  is  in  itself  another  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon?  and  in 
this-  making  certain  the  application  of 


another  part  of  the  prophecy  in  Isaiah,  29th 
chapter,  the  conditions  of  which  I  claim 
are  complete  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  The 
book  spoken  of  there  to  come  forth  is  to  be 
fought  in  such  a  way.  If  the  opposition 
was  from  a  different  standpoint  the  predic- 
tion would  be  incomplete.  The  prophecy 
sets  out  sufficient  to  show  that  it  might 
have  been  properly  tried  under  the  rule, 
for  it  is  to  contain  the  doctrine  of  Christ ; — 
no  mistaking  this;  verse  24:  "They  also 
that  erred  in  spirit  shall  come  to  under- 
standing, and  they  that  murmured  shall 
learn  doctrine." 

But  notwithstanding  this,  it  is  shown 
conclusively  in  verses  15,  16,  20,  and  21, 
that  those  who  opposed  the  book  would  do 
so  by  turning  things  upside  down  ; — revers- 
ing the  order  of  trying  things  under  God's 
law,  and  use  works  which  were  "in  the 
dark;"  "scorn"  the  claims  made  by  the 
one  bringing  the  book,  and  "watch  for  ini- 
quity ;" — try  to  find  something  against  his 
character  ; — "make  a  man  an  offender  for  a 
word,"  "and  lay  a  snare  for  him,"  for  it 
was  to  be  a  work  reproving  the  people  for 
leaving  the  law  ;  and  finally,  they  were 
to  "  turn  aside  the  just  for  a  thing  of 
nought." — Preferring  to  the  great  facts  of 
God's  law  and  the  justice  exemplified  there- 
in, those  things  that  are  of  little  account, 
a  tissue  and  a  refuge  of  lies  as  referred  to 
in  the  fifteenth  verse  of  the  28th  chapter, 
or  in  other  words  the  "  Spaulding  Story." 
Now,  singular  as  it  is,  I  have  never  met  a 
man  as  yet,  in  the  consideration  of  this 
question,  who  has  not  tried  the  book  from 
this  standpoint.  It  was  said  of  Jesus  that 
"he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors," 
to  fulfill  the  prediction  of  the  prophet, 
made  long  before ;  and  if  the  certain  ty  of 
agreement  of  prophecy  and  its  fulfillment 
is  such,  that  he  who  was  the  upright  and 
true,  the  humble  and  meek,  the  forgiving 
and  pure  of  the  city  of  Nazareth,  must  be 
charged  with  disobedience  to  law,  stirring 
up  of  sedition,  and  treason  to  the  State, 
and  suffer  the  final  affliction  of  death  be- 
tween two  thieves,  why  should  I  complain 
to  suffer  to  the  contest  of  lies,  and  ways 
that  are  dark,  which  the  prophet  speaks  of 
as  being  brought  to  oppose  at  some  day  the 
"Lord's  work. 

(Time  expired.) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.    BRADEN'S    SEVENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADTKS  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — We  wish  to  call  the  attention 
to  a  fact  strangely  overlooked  by  former 
writers — that  Spaulding  wrote  several  man- 
uscripts. Our  reasons  for  such  a  position 
are:  I.  The  length  of  time  he  spent  in  wri- 
ting his  book.  He  begun  in  1809,  and  the 
manuscript  was  taken  to  Patterson's  office 
in  1814.  He  spent  five  years  on  it.  II.  Mrs. 
8.  Spaulding,  his  wife,  Miss  Spaulding,  his 
daughter,  and  J.  N.  Miller,  declare  that  he 
had  many  manuscripts.  III.  The  witness- 
es in  Coneaut,  with  one  exception,  describe 
only  the  Nephite  portion,  showing  that  he 
had  only  written  that,  when  reading  to 
them.  The  Zarahemlite  and  Jaredite  por- 
tions were  not  written  when  he  read  to 
them.  IV.  Spaulding  stated  to  J.  N.  Mil- 
ler that  he  would  lead  a  retired  life  in  Pitts- 
burgh, and  re-write  his  manuscript.  Mil- 
ler is  the  only  one  who  describes  the  Zare- 
hemlite  per  lion.  He  had  added  that  to  his 
second  Mormon  manuscript.  V.  Patterson 
told  him  to  rewrite  it  and  prepare  it  for 
press.  Jas.  Miller  says  he  did,  and  left  this 
copy  with  Patterson,  and  that  it  was  this,  or 
his  third  Mormon  manuscript,  that  Rigdon 
slole  VI.  The  manuscript  that  Miss 
Spaulding  read  at  the  residence  of  her  un- 
cle, W.  H  Sabin,  was  not  large  enough  to 
constitute  such  a  work  as  the  publishers 
would  publish.  It  was  his  first  draft  on 
hismanuscriptNo.il.  Mormon  I.  VII.  The 
contradictions  between  these  portions  as  we 
will  show,  prove  that  they  were  written  in 
different  installments,  and  added  to  each 
other.  VIII.  When  Mrs.  Harris  destroyed 
118  pages  Rigdon  was  sent  for  and  he  re- 
placed them  from  another  Spaulding  man- 
uscript, one  of  the  ones  stolen  by  Smith 
from  Mrs.  Davidson's  house  in  Hartwicke 
in  1827.  IX.  Even  after  he  failed  to  get  his 
manuscript  published  and  the  copy  he  pre- 
pared had  been  stolen  by  Rigdon,  he  con- 
tinued to  write  on  to  the  last.  X.  Spauld- 
ing's  care  in  preserving  his  manuscript  is 
seen  in  the  fact  that  even  the  few  leaves  of 
his  Roman  manuscript  were  preserved,  and 
found  in  his  trunk  in  1834. 

This  removes  the  quibbling  of  Mormons 
about  Rigdon's  copying  so  much  manu- 
script. He  did  not,  he  stole  it.  Spaulding 
so  declared  in  1815-16.  Rigdon  showed  the 
manuscript  to  Win  ters,  and  stated  that  it 
was  the  manuscript  that  Spaulding  wrote — 
that  Spaulding  had  left  it  at  Pattersons — 
that  he  borrowed  it — not  copied  it.  Rigdon 
told  Jefries  he  took  the  manuscript  from  the 
printing  office.  It  settles  also  all  quibbling 
about  size  of  the  manuscript  Miss  Spauld- 
ing read  at  her  uncles.  Rigdoii  had 
the  one  her  father  had  prepared  for  press. 
She  read  the  first  draft  or  manuscript  No. 
II  Mormon  manuscript  No.  I.  it  also 
puts  an  end  to  the  three  Id  Josephh's 
talk  that  Soauldinff's  heirs  had  the 


manuscript  Jn  their  care  all  the  lime. 
It  puts  an  end  to  the  challenge  of  Mormons 
"Why  did  not  the  Spauldings  bring  out  the 
manuscript  and  prove  the  theft  and  pla- 
giarism by  publishing  the  original  manu- 
script?" Rigdon  had  stolen  Mormon  man- 
uscript No.  Ill  that  Spaulding  had  prepar- 
ed for  press,  Smith,  in  1827  had  stolen  other 
manuscripts. 

Did  Rigdon  steal  Spaulding's  manuscript? 
We  have  proved  that  he  was  learning  the 
tanner's  tradein  Pittsburg,  when  the  manu- 
script was  at  Patterson's  by  Mrs.  Echbaum. 
That  he  was  intimate  with  Lambdin  and 
was  about  the  office  so  much  that  Englea 
the  foreman  complained  of  it.  That  he  was 
much  interested  in  the  Spaulding  manu- 
script that  was  a  great  curiosity  in  the  of- 
fice, by  Mrs.  Spaulding.  That  the  manu- 
script was  stolen  and  Spaulding  blamed 
Rigdou,  by  Jas.  Miller,  McKee  and  Dr. 
Dodd.  That  Rigdon  showed  the  manu- 
script to  Dr.  Winters  in  1823  declaring  it 
was  Spaulding's  manuscript,  left  with  a 
printer,  that  he  borrowed  it,  and  told  what 
it  contained,  by  Dr.  Winter.  That  he  had 
it  in  1826,  and  declared  it  would  be  a  great 
thing  some  day,  by  his  niece  Mrs.  Dunlap. 
We  have  proved  that  he  knew  of  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  long  before  it 
appeared,  and  described  it,  by  D.  Atwater, 
A.  Bently,  Alexander  Campbell,  Green  and 
Dille.  We  have  proved  that  he  was  often 
absent  from  home  while  it  was  being  pre- 
pared for  press,  by  Z.  Randolph,  and  oth- 
ers. That  he  was  seen  at  Smith's  while  it 
was  being  prepared  for  press,  by  Tucker, 
Mrs.  Eaton  and  McCauley,  Chase  and  San- 
ders. We  have  proved  that  he  prepared 
his  congregation  for  the  reception  of  the 
book  and  his  ideas,  and  that  his  adherants 
went  into  Mormonism.  We  will,  when  we 
come  to  analyze  the  Book  of  Mormon,  prove 
that  there  are  Rigdonisms  on  nearly  every 
page,  and  several  on  many  single  pages.  I 
do  not  know  how  a  stronger  case  can  b« 
made. 

The  constant  jabber  of  Mormons,  calling 
on  persons  to  tell  when  and  hi>w  Rigdon 
came  in  contact  with  and  obtained  posses- 
sion of  the  Spaulding  manuscript,  and 
when  and  how  Rigdon  and  Smith  came  to- 
gether, and  concocted  this  scheme,  and 
brought  out  this  book,  is  an  insult  to  com- 
mon sense  and  every  principle  of  law.  If  a 
man  is  arrested  with  stolen  property  in  his 

Possession,  all  the  state  has  to  do  is  to  prove 
.  The  rightful  owner  of  the  property.  II. 
That  it  has  been  feloneously  taken  out  of 
his  possession.  III.  That  it  was  found  in 
the  possession  of  the  accused.  That  is  suf- 
ficient to  convict  him  of  being  a  thief,  or  a 
receiver  of  stolen  goods,  that  the  law  holds 
as  guilty  as  the  thiet.  The  state  does  not 
have  to  prove  that  the  accused  stole  the 
property.  Having  convicted  him  of  having 


74 


THE  ERADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


stolen  property  in  his  possession,  he  has  to 
prove  that  he  came  by  it  innocently,  or  be 
committed  as  thief  or  receiver  of  stolen  goods. 
We  have  proved  that  Spaulding  owned  the 
Manuscript  Found,  that  it  was  found  in  pos- 
session of  Rigdon,  that  it  was  offered  to  the 
public  as  his  own  property  by  Imposter 
Joe.  Unless  Mormons  can  prove  that  Rig- 
don and  Smith  came  by  it  innocently,  they 
are  convicted  as  thieves,  or  as  receivers  o'f 
stolen  goods.  As  lawyers  the  three  Id  Jo- 
seph and  his  man  Kelley  ought  to  know 
this. 

But  we  have  gone  far  beyond  what  is 
necessary  in  order  to  convict  Rigdon  and 
Smith.  Let  me  illustrate  our  work.  Sup- 
pose that  a  man  lives  for  years  in  Kirtland, 
who  has  a  museum  of  rare  relics.  There 
are  absolutely  no  duplicates  of  any  of  them. 
He  is  a  sort  of  monomaniac  over  his  museum, 
takes  everybody  to  see  it  that  he  can  in  any 
way  induce  to  look  at  it,  and  is  constantly 
talking  about  it.  and  describing  it.  He 
moves  away,  and  some  years  afterwards  a 
couple  of  fellows  come  along  and  advertise 
a  wonderful  museum,  that  they  claim  an 
angel  gave  by  miracle  to  one  of  them. 
People  of  Kirtland  flock  out  to  see  this 
miraculous  museum.  No  sooner  do  they 
cast  eyes  on  it,  than  a  shout  goes  up,  "why 
this  the  collection  of  'Old-come-to-pass,''" 
a  nick-name  they  had  given  to  their  former 
neighbor.  The  two  fellows  are  arrested 
for  theft.  The  heirs  of  the  old  neighbor 
are  looked  up.  They  say  the  collection  is 
in  a  certain  trunk.  When  the  trunk  is  ex- 
amined it  is  found  that  not  a  single  article 
of  the  collection  is  in  it.  The  trial  comes 
on.  The  former  neighbors  of  the  original 
owner  come  in  and  testify,  describing  the 
articles  in  the  collection  of  their  old  neigh- 
bor, and  describe  nearly  all  the  leading 
articles  in  the  museum.  The  museum  is 
placed  before  them.  They  pick  out  all  the 
leading  articles,  but  reject  some,  saying, 
"he  did  not  have  these."  The  thieves 
would  go  to  the  penetentiary,  unless  they 
could  show  that  they  came  by  them 
honestly. 

But  suppose  the  state  proceeds  to  prove 
that  the  owner  took  his  collection  to  a 
certain  place  to  be  prepared  for  exhibition. 
That  one  of  the  thieves  was  constantly 
around  there,  took  great  interest  in  them. 
That  just  before  the  owner's  death,  these 
relics  disappeared,  and  that  the  owner  and 
others  blamed  this  fellow  with  stealing 
them.  That  a  few  years  afterwards  he 
showed  them  to  persons  saying  that  they 
were  the  deceased  man's  relics,  that  he  had 
left  to  be  prepared  for  exhibition,  and  that 
he  had  borrowed  them  from  the  one  who 
was  to  prepare  them  for  exhibition,  in 
order  to  examine  them.  That  he  was  seen 
with  them  in  his  possession  and  examining 
them  years  afterwards,  declaring,  "they 
would  be  a  big  thing  some  day."  That 
soon  afterwards  he  began  to  exhibit  certain 
peculiar  articles  of  his  own  manufacture, 
and  to  prophesy  that  an  angel  would  give  to 
the  world  a  museum,  with  certain  articles 
in  it.  describing-  the  articles  of  the  deceased 


man .  That  he  was  seen  in  company  with  his 
confederate.  That  the  confederate  began  to 
tell  that  an  angel  had  given  to  him  a 
museum  of  such  articles,  and  in  a  short 
time  the  two  began  to  exhibit  the  museum 
containing  the  relics  of  the  deceased,  and 
the  articles  the  first  fellow  had  been  ex- 
hibiting. The  case  would  be  made  out  as 
clearly  as  if  a  thousand  men  swore  that 
they  saw  the  theft. 

We  have  proven  that  Solomon  Spaulding 
exhibited  for  years,  in  Conneaut,  and  in  oth- 
er places,  a  cabinet  of  curiosities,  that  were 
absolutely  nowhere  else  except  in  his  Man- 
uscript Found.  That  he  was  a  sort  of  mo- 
nomaniac over  his  Manuscript  Found,  forc- 
ing it  on  all  he  could  get  hold  of,  holding 
them  like  Coleridge's  Ancient  Mariner. 
That  his  mania  had  caused  persons  to  nick- 
name him,  "Old  come  to  pass."  We  have 
proved  that  when  the  Book  of  Mormon  was 
exhibited  in  Conneaut,  that  those  who  had, 
through  Spalding's  mania,  been  made  fa- 
miliar with  his  Manuscript  Found,  recog- 
nized the  Manuscript  Found  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  Squire  Wright  shouting  out, 
"  Old  come  to  pass  has  come  to  life."  His 
brother  arose  and  denounced  the  theft  and 
fraud  on  the  spot.  His  old  neighbors  sent 
a  messenger  to  his  widow,  who  sent  them 
to  the  trunk,  where  the  manuscript  was 
supposed  to  be,  and  it  was  not  in  the  trunk. 
It  had  been  stolen.  We  have  introduced 
the  clear  positive  testimony  of  seventeen 
witnesses,  who,  in  describing  the  Manu- 
script Found,  give  a  better  description  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon — the  historic  part — 
than  the  average  Mormon  preacher  can 
give  from  memory.  We  have  presented 
them  the  book  of  Mormon  and  they  unite 
in  picking  out  the  historic  portions  as  part 
of  the  Manuscript  Found  and  in  rejecting 
others  as  not  in  the  Manuscript  Found. 
We  have  proved  that  one  of  the  accused, 
Rigdon,  was  around  the  place  where  the 
manuscript  Spaulding  had  prepared  for  the 
press  was  last  seen.  That  he  took  a  deep 
interest  in  it.  That  Spaulding  told  James 
Miller  and  McKee  and  Dr.  Dodd  that  his 
manuscript  had  been  stolen  and  Rigdon 
was  suspected  of  the  theft.  We  have 
proved  that  Rigdon  in  1822  or  3  showed  the 
manuscript  to  Dr.  Winters,  stating  that 
it  was  a  manuscript  that  Spaulding  a 
Presbyterian  preacher  had  left  with  a 
printer,  for  publication,  and  that  he  had 
borrowed  it  from  the  printer  to  read  as  a 
curiosity.  It  was  a  Bible  romance,  pur- 
porting to  be  a  history  of  the  American  In- 
dians. That  he  told  Jeffries  he  took  it  from 
the  printing  office  and  gave  it  to  Smith  to 
publish.  That  he  spent  so  much  time  over 
it  in  1826.  as  to  cause  his  wife  to  threaten 
to  burn  it,  to  which  he  replied,  "that  it 
would  be  a  great  thing  some  day."  We 
proved  by  Alexander  Campbell,  A.Bently, 
and  D.  Atwater  that  Rigdon  years  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared  stated  that 
such  a  book  would  appear,  it  was  dug  out 
of  the  ground,  was  engraved  on  gold  plates, 
contained  a  history  of  the  aborigines  of 
this  continent,  gave  the  history  of  the  peo- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


75 


pie  who  construed  the  antiquities  of 
America,  that  it  taught  that  the  gospel  was 
preached  in  America,  in  the  first  centuries 
of  our  era,  as  the  Disciples  were  then  preach- 
ing it  on  the  Reserve.  We  have  proved  that 
Rigdon  preached  the  religious  portions,  the 
part  that  our  witnesses  did  not  recognize 
as  Spaulding's.  We  have  proved  that  Rig- 
don was  away  from  home  during  the  time 
that  Smith  was  working  on  his  pretended 
plates.  That  he  was  seen  with  Smith. 
That  right  after  he  began  to  visit  Smith 
the  latter  began  to  tell  about  finding  the 
plates  and  began  his  pretended  translation 
of  them.  We  have  made  our  case. 

MORMON   CHRONOLOGY. 

1761 — Solomon  Spaulding  was  born  in  Ash- 
ford,  Connecticut. 

1785 — Solomon  Spaulding  graduated  with 
the  degree  of  A.  B.  at  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege. 

1787 — Solomon  Spaulding  graduated  in  Di- 
vinity. He  received  the  degree  of  A. 
M.  from  Dartmouth  College. 

178«( — Solomon  Spaulding  preaches  as  Con- 
gregational preacher  till  compelled  to 
stop  by  ill  health,  in  1800. 

1793— Sidney  Rigdon  was  born  Feb.,  19th 
near  the  village  of  Library,  St.  Clair 
townshio,  Alleghany  county,  Penn- 
sylvania. 

1796— Joseph  Smith,  8en.,  and  Lucy  Mack 
married  in  Tun  bridge,  Vermont. 

1800 — Solomon  Spaulding  moves  to  Cherry 
Valley,  New  York,  and  engages  in 
merchandizing  till  1805,  and  marries 
MatildaSabin. 

1805— Imposter  Joe  Smith  born  Dec.  23,  in 
Sharon,  Windsor  county,  Vermont. 

1807 — Solomon  Spaulding  having  failed  in 
business  moves  to  Coneaut,  Ohio,  and 
engages  in  business. 

1808 — He  becomes  very  much  interested  in 
the  mounds  around  Coneaut,  and  has 
several  opened.  He  begins  a  histor- 
ical romance,  assuming  that  their 
builders  were  the  descendants  of  ship- 
wrecked Romans.  His  Manuscript 
No.  1.  His  Roman  Manuscript. 

1809 — He  abandons  this  idea  as  too  near  his 
own  time  and  begins  his  Manuscript 
No.  II.  Mormon  Manuscript  No.  I. 
He  assumes  that  the  aborigines  of 
America  were  Israelites  from  Jerusa- 
lem. He  fails  in  business  and  an- 
nounces to  his  creditors,  his  purpose  to 
pub  ish  his  romance,  as  "  Manuscript 
Found,"  and  pay  his  debts. 

1610-11-12 — Spaulding  continues  to  write 
on  his  romance,  and  to  read  to  all  that 
he  can  induce  to  listen  to  him.  His 
monomania  causes  his  neighbors  to 
nick-name  him  "  Old  come  to  pass" 
on  account  of  the  absurd  frequency  of 
that  expression  in  his  manuscript. 
He  begins  Manuscript  No.  Ill,  Mor- 
mon Manuscript  No.  II,  adding  the 
Zarahemla  portion.  He  moves  to 
Pittsburg  to  prepare  his  manuscript 
for  publication. 
A  religious  impostor  in  Vermont. 


creates  much  excitement  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Smiths.  Mr*.  Smith 
is  very  active  in  the  «*citement,  and 
prophecies,  that  Joe,  then  a  lad  of 
seven,  will  be  a  prophet,  and  found  a 
new  religion.  Joe  is  reared  with  that 
idea  constantly  before  him.  The 
family  are  all  taught  it. 

1813-11— At  the  ad  vice  of  Patterson,  Spauld- 
ing prepares  for  press  his  Manuscript 
No.  IV,  Mormon  Manuscript  No.  III. 
It  is  carried  to  Patterson's  office  for 
publication. 

Sidney  Rigdon  is  learning  the  tannors 
trade  in  Pittsburg.    He  is  very  inti 
mate  with  Lambdin  a    leading    em 
ployee  of    Patterson.    He  is    around 
the  office  so  much,  that  Engles,  the 
foreman,  complains  of  it.     He  takes 
great  interest  in   Spaulding's  manu- 
script. 

Spaulding  moves  to  Amity,  Washing- 
ton county,  Pa.,  and  his  wife  keeps 
tavern. 

1815 — The  Smith's  move  to  Palmyra,  New 
York. 

1816 — Spauldinginforms  Jas.  Miller,  McKee 
and  J  r.  Dodd,  that  his  manuscript 
has  been  stolen  from  Patterson's 
office,  and  that  Ripdon  is  blamed 
with  the  theft.  Spaulding  died  Octo- 
ber 20th,  1818.  His  widow  collects 
his  papers  that  she  can  find  and  takes 
them  with  her,  in  a  trunk,  to  the 
residence  of  his  brother,  W.  H.  Sabin, 
Onondajja  county,  New  York. 

1817 — Sidney  Rigdon  joins  the  Baptist 
Church  on  Piney  Fork  of  Peters' 
Creek,  May  31st. 

1819 — The  Smiths  squat  on  a  piece  of  land 
belonging  to  minors  in  Ontario  County, 
New  York.  Rigdon  studies  theology 
with  Rev.  Clark  of  the  Regular  Bap- 
tist Church  in  Beaver  County,  Pa. 

1819 — Rigdon  is  licensed  to  preach  by  the 
Connequessing  Baptist  Church. 

1820— Rigdon  goes  to  Warren,  Trumbull 
County,  Ohio,  where  an  uncle  is  » 
prominent  member  of  the  Baptist 
Church.  He  joins  that  church  March 
4th.  He  is  ordained  to  preach  by  that 
church  April  1st.  Marries  Phebe  A. 
Brooks. 
Mrs.  Spaulding,  Spaulding's  widow, 

goes  to  Pomfret,  Connecticut. 
Rigdon  preaches  for  the  Baptist  Church 
in  Warren,  and  for  others  in  the  vicin- 
ity. 

1821— Rigdon  continues  to  preach  for  the 
Baptists  in  Warren.  In  this  year,  or 
in  the  year  following,  Mrs.  Spaulding 
marries  Mr.  Davidson  of  Hartwick, 
Otsego  County,  New  York,  and  goes 
there  to  live. 

1822 — Rig  don  moves  to  Pittsburg.  Is  elected 
pastor  of  the  First  Baptist  Church 
Jan.  28. 

During  this  year  or  the  year  following, 
he  shows  to  Dr.  Winter,  a  prominent 
teacher  in  Pittsburg,  a  Baptist 
preacher,  and  an  intimate  acquaint- 
ance, Spaulding's  Manuscript  No.  IV, 


76 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Mormon  Manuscript  No.  III.  He  says: 
"  It  is  a  Bible  romance,  purporting  to 
be  a  history  of  the  American  Indians, 
that  a  Presbyterian  preacher  named 
Spaulding  wrote,  and  left  with  a 
printer  for  publication.  I  borrowed 
it  to  read  through  curiosity." 

In  digging  a  well  for  Willard  Chase, 
Joseph  Smith,  senior,  the  father  of 
Imposter  Joe,  found  a  stone  of  cloudy 
quartz,  that  singularly  resembled  a 
child's  foot.  Imposter  Joe  who  was 
loafing  around,  stole  it  from  Chase's 
children.  This  is  the  famous  peep- 
s tone  of  Imposter  Joe,  the  Urhu  and 
Thummim  of  Mormonism. 

Rigdon  had  stolen  its  Bible,  now,  Im- 
poster Joe  stole  its  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim. 

1823 — Rigdon  preaches  for  the  Baptist 
Church  until  Oct.  llth  when  he  is 
excluded  for  doctrinal  heresies.  He 
goes  to  the  Court  House  and  preaches 
to  his  followers. 

Imposter  Joe  begins  his  course  as  im- 
poster.  He  pretends  to  witch  for 
water  with  a  witch  hazel  rod,  and  to 
find  lost  property  and  hidden  treas- 
ures and  mines  with  his  stolen  peep- 
stone  by  putting  it  into  his  hat  and 
holding  his  face  into  his  hat. 

In  September,  while  working  for  W.  H. 
Sabin,  where  Miss  Spaulding,  Spauld- 
in-j's  daughter  was  living,  with  her 
father's  papers  in  her  care,  Joseph 
Smith  learns  of  the  existence  of  the 
Spaulding  manuscripts.  This  is  the 
true  interpretation  of  his  wonderful 
vision  of  Sept.  23,  1823,  when  Moroni, 
now  an  angel,  appears  to  him,  and 
reveals  to  him  the  existence  of  the 
plates  he — Moroni — had  buried  hun- 
dreds of  years  before,  and  lets  Joe 
have  a  peep  at  them. 

Joseph  Smith  manufactured  that  story 
twenty  years  afterwards  in  1843.  He 
told  of  no  such  vision  then.  The  true 
interpretation  is  he  learned  of  the 
Spaulding  manuscript  while  working 
for  Sabin  in  Sept.  1823. 

1824— Mrs.  Davidson  has  the  trunk  contain- 
ing her  husband's  papers  sent  to  her 
in  Hartwicke,  N.  Y. 

Rigdon  preaches  for  his  adherents  until 
in  the  summer,  in  the  Court  House. 
He  then  quits  preaching  and  works  in 
a  tannery,  and  begins  revising  his 
stolen  manuscript.  It  was  a  period  of 
great  religious  excitement  and  new 
parties  were  springing  up  continually. 
The  excitement  of  the  movement  of 
the  Campbells  was  beginning  to  be 
the  chief  topic  in  Western  Pennsylva- 
nia. Rigdon  had  adopted  some,  but 
not  all  of  their  ideas  He  saw  he 
could  not  be  a  leader,  in  competition 
with  them  if  he  went  into  it.  He  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  remodeling  the 
Spaulding  manuscript  by  interpolat- 
ing portions  of  the  Bible,  and  his  own 
peculiar  religious  ideas,  pretending 
that  it  was  a  record  kept  by  the 


Israelites,  who  came  to  America,  just 
as  the  Bible  was  kept  by  Israelites  ir> 
Asia,  and  was  as  much  a  revelation  as 
the  Bible. 

He  intended  by  such  fraud  to  start  a 
new  religious  movement  with  himself 
as  prophet,  and  his  stolen  manuscript 
thus  revised  as  its  new  revelation. 
1825 — Rigdon  continues  his  revision  of  his 
stolen  manuscript  and  works  in  the 
tannery. 

Smith  is  in  the  height  of  his  glory  as 
imposter,  He  has  a  gang  of  loa'fing 
dupes  and  knaves  digging  through 
southern  New  York  and  northern 
Pennsylvania  for  buried  treasures, 
mines  of  precious  metals  that  he  pre- 
tends to  see  through  his  stolen  peep- 
stone.  He  extends  his  operations  to 
Harmony,  Pa.  He  makes  the  ac- 
quaintance of  Emma  Hale.  Asks  her 
hand  in  marriage.  Is  decidedly  re- 
fused by  her  father  on  account  of  his 
bad  character. 

1826— In  the  latter  part  of  winter  Rigdon 
moves  to  Bainbridge,  Geauga  county, 
Ohio.  He  spent  so  much  time  on 
his  stolen  manuscript  that  his  wife 
threatened  to  burn  it.  He  replied; 
"  that  the  manuscript  would  be  a 
great  thing  some  day." 
Smith  is  in  full  blast  as  imposter. 
He  extends  his  operations  until  the 
extreme  parts  are  150  miles  apart. 
The  doings  of  Smith  and  his  gang, 
and  the  peep-stone  of  Smith  are  ex- 
tensively commented  on  by  the  press 
of  the  region. 

In  June  Rigdon  preaches  the  funeral 
sermon  of  Warner  Goodali  in  Mentor; 
He  pleases  the  church,  and  it  selects  • 
him  as  pastor  and  he  becomes  a  Disci- 
ple preacher. 

1827 — Smith  goes  to  Harmony,  Pa.,  in  the 
absence  of  Mr.  Hale,  runs  oft'  with 
his  daughter  and  marries  her  in  South 
Bainbridge,  N  Y.  The  ceremony  is 
performed  by  Tarbell,  J.  P.,  .Jan.  18th. 
Rigdon  tells  Darwin  Atwater  that  a 
book  will  soon  appear  giving  an  ac- 
count of  the  aborigines  of  this  conti- 
nent and  the  origin  of  American 
antiquities. 

He  tells  A.  Bently  that  a  book  was 
about  to  be  published  that  was  found 
engraved  on  plates  of  gold.  A.  Camp- 
bell testifies  that  he  said  also  that  it 
was  dug  out  of  the  earth  in  New  York . 
It  contained  an  account  of  the  abori- 
gines of  this  continent.  That  it  said 
that  the  gospel  had  been  preached  in 
America  just  as  the  disciples  were 
then  preaching  it  on  the  Reserve,  dur- 
ing the  first  centuries  of  our  era. 
Rigdon  preached  during  this  and  the 
three  succeeding  year,  the  peculiar 
ideas  that  are  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
He  indoctrinated  all  of  his  hearers, 
that  he  could,  with  these  ideas,  and 
prepared  for  the  coming  of  his  new 
revelation. 
In  the  spring  of  1827  a  stranger  was  ob- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


77 


served  at  Smith's  house.  Shortly  after 
he  made  his  appearance,  the  Smiths 
be°:an  to  tell  of  the  golden  bible. 
People  of  Mentor  began  to  notice  that 
Rigdon  was  often  absent  from  home 
for  days,  and  no  one  knew  where. 
Spaulding  had  in  tended  to  assume  that 
his  romance  was  a  translation  of  a 
manuscript  found  in  the  earth.  From 
1818  tc  1827,  the  papers  contained  ac- 
counts of  finding  glyphs  of  metallic 
plates,  covered  with  unknown  charac- 
ters. In  the  spring  of  1827,  a  story 
was  started  that  a  book  of  such 
glyphs  had  been  found  in  Canada, 
and  that  it  was  called  a  "Golden 
Bible." 

SJgdon  adopted  this  idea,  and  the 
scheme  was  concocted  to  pretend  that 
Smith  had  found  a  book  of  gold  plates 
called  the  "Golden  Bible."  Smith 
was  to  pretend  to  translate  it  with 
his  peep  stone,  stolen  from  the  Chases 
children.  He  was  in  reality  to  use 
Rig'don's  revision  of  the  manuscript 
he  had  stolen  from  Spaulding,  and 
pretend  that  it  was  a  translation  of 
the  plates  that  he  pretended  that  he 
had  found. 

Smith  informs  Rigdon  of  the  place 
where  the  rest  of  the  Spaulding 
manuscripts  could  be  found.  The 
confederates  dare  not  publish  their 
fraud  while  they  were  in  existence. 
In  September,  1827,  Smith  was  loafing 
around  Mrs.  Davidson's  neighbor- 
hood, superintending  a  gang,  digging 
for  a  silver  mine,  on  the  place  of 
Stowell,  and  also  a  well  or  two 
were  dug  in  the  neighborhood. 
September  22  he  succeeded  in  stealing 
some  of  the  Spaulding  manuscripts. 
This  is  the  true  interpretation  of  his 
wonderful  vision  of  September  21-22, 
1827.  They  had  now,  they  supposed, 
all  the  Spaulding's  Mormon  manu- 
scripts in  their  possession,  and  they 
supposed  all  means  of  detection  were 
destroyed. 

Smith  then  began  his  pretended  trans- 
lation of  his  pretended  plates. 
In  the  fall  Smith  moved   to  Harmony, 
Pennsylvania,    to    his   father-in-law. 
While  on   Cfie  road  his  goods  were 


searched  twice  for  stolen  property. 

His  father's  house  was  searched  about 

the  same  time. 
1828— Martha       Spaulding,       Spaulding's 

daughter,  marries  Dr.  McKinstry  and 

moves  to  Munson,  Massachusetts  to 

live. 
Rigdon  makes  a  convert  of  P.  P.  Pratt, 

a  teacher  in  Lorain  county,  Ohio,  who 

begins   to  preach   for  the    Disciples. 

He   lets  Pratt  into  his  scheme,  who 

goes  into  it  and  eventually  becomes 

the  Paul  of  Mormonism. 
Smith  begins  to  translate.  Martin  Har- 
ris is  his  scribe.  In  July  Smith  let  Harris 
have  118  pages  to  take  back  to  Manchester 
to  use  in  making  dupes  and  enlisting  con- 
federates, in  the  fraud.  Mrs.  Harris  who 
was  bitterly  opposed  to  the  fraud,  burned 
the  118  pages,  without  her  husband's  knowl- 
edge. 

Great  consternation  ensues.  Rigdon  comes 
and  gets  the  Spaulding  manuscript  that 
Smith  had  stolen  and  reconstructs  from 
this  the  portion  that  had  been  burned. 

Smith  has  a  long  revelation  telling  what 
had  been  done  by  malicious  persons — telling 
what  no  one  had  done  or  dreamed  of  doing. 
Smith  did  not  know  what  had  been  done, 
and  the  Mormon  God  concocts  a  plan  to  cir- 
cumvent a  scheme  that  had  never  been  even 
dreamed  of. 

Smith  returns  to  Waterloo,  New  York,  in 
the  fall.  The  angels  plow  seven  acres  of 
wheat  and  sow  ten  acres  of  plaster  to 
enable  Whitmer  to  go  and  move  Srait  h. 

(1S29).  In  March  Oliver  Cowdery  is  made 
Smith's  scribe.  Rigdon  comes  and  gives 
Smith  what  he  has  revised  of  the  Spaulding 
manuscript,  and  translation  proceeds. 

May  5th,  John  the  Baptist  appears  to 
Joseph  and  Oliver,  and  gives  to  them  the 
keys  of  the  first  priesthood,  etc.  Smith  has 
a  cave  dug  in  which  to  hold  levees  with 
angels. 

Smith  gives  Harris  a  scrawl  to  take  to 
Anthon  in  New  York  City.  Harris  returns 
and  publishes  a  false  statement  about  the 
interview. 

Early  in  June  the  translation  is  complet- 
ed. In  about  two  months  Oliver  Cowdery, 
an  inexperienced  blacksmith,  wrote  out  at 
least  two  thousand  foolscap  pages,  or  an 
average  of  over  thirty  pages  per  day. 


78 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   KELLEY'S   EIGHTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LATHES  AND 
GKNTI,EMEN  :  I  know  you  have  been  enter- 
tained with  the  story  and  the  gossip  that 
has  been  brought  forward.    The  wonderful 
amount  of  testimony,  too,  that  you   have 
heard  from  those  fourteen  witnesses  !  Have 
you  not  heen  anxiously  waiting-  here,  and 
listening,  and  watching  to  have  something 
read  in  the  shape  of  evidence?    Yet,  you 
have  not  heard  one  single  affidavit  read, 
one  single  statement  read,  one  single  thing 
read  that  could  with  any  show  of  truth  be 
properly  called  evidence.    It  is  the  first 
time  I  ever  heard  a  man  get  up  and  state 
what  he  had  culled  from  statements,  or  pur- 
ported affidavits,  to  an  audience  and  ask 
them  to  take  it  as  evidence,  without  hear- 
ing the  entire  statement  of  the  party  read, 
or  if  it  is  printed  giving  the  reader  the 
privilege  of  reading  the  entire  evidence  for 
himself.     I  will  pick  it  out  and  select  just 
what  I  want  the  audience  to  hear,  and  thus 
in   fact  stand  as  judge  for  the  audience. 
That  is  the  position  of  my  friend  before 
you.    I  will  say,  however,  with  regard  to 
his  story,  (and  he  has  made  out  his  case  he 
says,)    he  is  done  now;   just  understand 
that: — that  ifc  is,  with   one  exception,  the 
most    singular  thing  that  I  ever  saw  or 
heard.  There  is  one  gotten  up  that  is  a  fair 
parallel  to  it,  however, — one  just  like  it.     I 
have  it  in  a  book  in  my  house,  and  intended 
to  have  brought  it  over  to-night  and  exhib- 
ited to  you,  but  forgot  it.  It  was  published 
by  Alexander  Smythe  in  Chicago  in  1880. 
Instead,    however,   of   being    against    the 
Latter  Day  Saints,  it  is  against  the  early,  or 
former  day  saints.    The  author  sets  out  by 
making  the  apostle  Paul  the  hero  of  the 
Christian  religion.    He  plays   him  as  the 
master  mind  of  the  whole  scheme  trans- 
acted in  Palestine.    He  concocted  the  plan 
in  order  to  establish  a  church  and  found  a 
new  religion  in  the  time  in  which  he  lived. 
As  a  starting  point  and  for  the  purpose  of 
awakening  the  people  to  the  scheme,  this 
man  says,  that  Paul  procured  a  poor  crazy 
fanatic,  called  John  the  Baptist,  and  sent 
him  into  the  wilderness  of  Judea  and  had 
him  preach  a  while  to  tell  them  that  one 
who  was  then  pending  in  their  midst  would 
soon  come,  and  h->  «rould  be  the  Messiah 
and  restore  all  thing*  to  them.    After  a 
while  that  one  tha,*  ..as  to  be  the  Messiah 
is  brought  out  to  play  his  part,  according 
to  the  tale.    He  was  a  relative  of  John  the 
Baptist,  he  says.    It  happens,  too,  that  the 
party  mixed  in  a  grain  of  truth  here  in 
order  to  deceive,  as  Christ  was  a  relative. 
Then  the  story  proceeds  to  the  effect,  that, 
ai'cer  a  while  when  the  apostle  Paul  thought 
that  he  had  used  John  the  Baptist  all  he 
wanted  to,  he  puts  up  a  job  on  John  and  has 
Herod  behead  him.  Then  he  has  Jesus  play 
the  Messiah  until  the  time  that  he  thinks 
things  are  about  ripe  for  to  spring  some  great 


excitement  in  the  world.    All  the  time  this 
author  cunningly  represents  the  apostle  as 
playing  behind  the  scenes,  until  Jesus  has 
made  himself  well  known,  then  he  foists 
some  horrid  stories  upon  the  ears  of  the 
populace  in  Jerusalem  against  the  Messiah, 
and  just  at  a  time  when  he  is  approach- 
ing the  city,  (Jesus  not  knowing  anything 
about  Paul's  perfidy,)  and  the  excited  peo- 
ple rise  and  put  him  to  death.  The  Apostle 
Paul  then  steals  his  body  and  makes  away 
with  it ;  so  the  story  goes.     And  after  he 
had  done  that  he  starts  down  to  Damascus, 
and  all  of  a  sudden  the  apostle  gets  con- 
verted to  the  new  religion  by  a  great  mira- 
cle, and  goes  back  in  order  to  make  a  great 
sensation  in  the  world,  telling  his  wonder- 
ful experience;  and  from  that  time  becomes 
the  "  ringleader."     You  take  that  book,  my 
friends,  and  read  it,  published  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  in  the  year  1880,  and  ob- 
serve the  things  that  it  takes  from   the 
Bible,  excerpting  here  and  there,  in  order 
to  make  a  show  of  truth,  and  notice  the  in- 
genuity with   which  the  false  statements 
are  thrown  in  between,  and  then  compare 
with  his  Spaulding  story,  and  you  will  find 
that  it  is  a  far  more  plausible  story  than  he 
has  presented  to  you  in  trying  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  But 
he  has  chosen  in  this  discussion  to  rely  upon 
as  a  defense,  as  I  was  just  saying  before  my 
time  was  called,  the  Spaulding  stori/^  and 
character;  either  as  a  counter  proof  suffi- 
cient or  as  a  means  of  prejudicing  the  peo- 
ple against  an  investigation  of  ihe  facts. 
But  whatever  the  object  it  matters  not  to 
me,  for  I  shall  canvass  the  story  itself,  and 
see  what  truth  if  any  there  is  in  it.    Prop- 
erly it  does  not  belong  to  this  question  ;  as 
foreign  to  it  in  fact  as  were  the  stories  and 
false  charges  of  "deceiver,"  "gluttonous 
man,"  "wine  bibber,"  &c.,  to  ascertaining 
the  truth  of  the  mission  of  Jesus.    Not- 
withstanding this,  some  want  it  examined, 
and  I  assure  you  it  is  but  an  easy  task  to 
drag  it  to  the  bottom. 

How  bad  indeed  according  to  my  oppo- 
nent's arraignment  was  this  Smith  crowd. 
The  old  man,  the  old  lady,  the  boys  and  the 
girls.  One  would  gather  from  his  talk  that 
they  had  been  under  the  general  espionage  of 
the  secret  service  department  all  along  down 
the  previous  century.  Yet,  no  crime  was 
ever  even  charged  against  one  of  them,  ex- 
cept in  the  old  women's  tales  and  gossip, 
spun  by  the  pious  (?)  of  the  neighborhood. 
From  before  the  time  they  left  the  State  of 
Vermont  they  were  thought  to  be  squeam- 
ish. Yet,  the  old  lady  brought  with  her  to 
New  York  State,  a  certificate  of  good  stand- 
ing in  the  Presbyterian  church.  Were 
Presbyterians,  and  especially  those  of  the 
old  New  England  stock,  in  those  times, 
immoral,  impious,  and  Sabbath  breakers? 
In  New  York,  their  sons  Hyrum  and  Sam- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


79 


uel  and  their  daughter  Sophronia  also 
Joined  the  Presbyterian  church  and  were  in 
pood  standing  in  that  church  during  this 
time  ;  yet  they  were  awful  bad  folks.  They 
quietly  remained  members  of  this  body, 
•which  was  considered  one  of  the  straightest 
sects,  up  to  theyear  1827,  when  they  deliber- 
ately withdrew  from  it  themselves  because 
of  their  conversion,  as  they  claimed,  to  the 
restored  gospel.  Joseph,  an  attentive  list- 
ener at  the  Methodist  church,  and  he  is  just 
about  to  be  taken  in  as  a  member,  when  he 
happens  to  think  that  he  will  go  and  pray  ; 
— ask  God  what  he  shall  do;  for  he  is 
in  a  confusion  of  mind  over  what  to  do. 
My  friends,  have  any  of  you  ever  been  in 
such  a  state!  and  if  so  did  you  go  to  your 
heavenly  Father  to  ask  his  advice? 

Now  this  is  the  sum  total  of  the  crime  of 
the  fourteen-year-old  boy  at  this  time.  He 
went  and  asked  God  for  wisdom,  and  said 
the  Lord  spoke  to  him  and  told  him  what 
to  do.  It  would  never  have  been  of  note  in 
the  world  about  his  asking,  had  he  not 
stated  that  at  the  time  he  received  an 
answer;  and  such  an  answer.  What  was 
it?  "That  the  churches  were  not  right." 
This  was  before  Mr.  Campbell  ever  left  the 
Baptist  church,  sir,  and  while  Charles  and 
John  Wesley  were  singing, 

"Almighty  God  of  love, 

Set  up  the  a  t  active  sign. 
And  summon  whom  thou  dost  approre 

For  messengei s  divine. 
From  Abram's  favored  seed, 

The  new  apostles  choose; 
Go  sprend  throughout  the  earth  around. 

The  dead  reviving  news." 

Was  it  any  worse  for  young  Joseph  Smith 
to  say  these  churches  were  wrong,  and  did 
not  meet  in  full  the  measure  of  the  Alraigty 
than  others  ?  Ah  !  but  he  said  God  told 
him  so,  in  answer  to  prayer.  Well,  did  he 
never  tell  my  friend  anything  in  answer  to 
prayer. 

Answer  me  that,  and  do  not  forget  it  as 
you  did  at  Wilber ! !  If  Jesus  or  his  mes- 
sengers, did  not  tell  him  this,  where  did  he 
get  it?  He  was  not  the  learned  and  schol- 
arly man  that  you  claim  for  Mr.  Campbell; 
nor  in  a  part  of  the  world  where  he  could 
gain  from  the  wisdom  of  the  Wesleys.  Yet, 
he  is  the  first  of  the  age  to  come  out  boldly 
and  frankly  and  say,  "none  of  them  are 
right."  Not  that  they  were  wrong  in  all 
things,  for  he  recognized  that  there  was 
some  good  in  each  and  all  of  them.  But 
that  none  were  all  right — acknowledged  of 
God.  Sixty-three  years  have  passed  away 
and  now  who  says  it  among  the  religious 
teachers  ?  Mr.  Campbell  soon  did  ;  Walter 
Scott,  Sidney  Rigdon,  Henry  Ward  Beech- 
er  Dr.  Thomas,  Dr.  Cheeney,  Prof.  Swing. 
W.  H.  H.  Murry,  and  a  host  of  others.  Ana 
this,  too,  notwithstanding  the  great  refor- 
mation wrought  under  Campbell.  His 
might  be  termed  the  water  reformation  ! 
Young  Smith,  as  any  young  boy  would 
have  done  under  such  circumstances,  with 
confidence  in  his  heart  and  faith  in  the 
justice  of  his  cause,  goes  directly  with  his 
answer  to  his  preacher,  the  pastor;  states 
tis  case;  and  what  would  you  have  sup- 


posed the  reception  under  the  circum- 
stances, of  a  person  of  his  age  going  to  the 
pastor  with  the  story.  "The  Lord  showed 
me  in  the  vision  that'the  churches  were  all 
wrong."  Now  take  the  opposite  view. 
Suppose  the  answer  to  Smith  had  been, 
You  join  the  Methodist  Church,  (there  was 
no  Campbellite  Church  in  the  world  to  this 
time),  as  that  is  more  acceptable  to  me  than 
the  Baptist  or  Presbyterian.  Do  you  think 
the  Methodist  preacher  would  have  called 
the  boy  a  liar,  and  said  he  had  no  such 
vision  ?  No,  you  all  know,  he  would  have 
put  young  Joseph  at  the  head  of  the  con- 
verts, and  had  him  testify  every  night.  It 
makes  a  big  difference  whose  ox  is  gored 
sometimes. 

Why  I  remember  well  last  winter  reading 
an  account  of  a  lady  in  the  Methodist 
church  inColdwater,  Michigan,  who  claim- 
ed to  be  actually  healed  by  the  power  of 
faith  in  that  church,  and  the  church  ac- 
cepted it.  While  the  Saints  at  the  same 
place  for  the  last  twenty  years  had  been 
affirming  that  God  so  wrought  with  them 
and  that  they  had  had  many  instances  of 
such  blessings,  yet  they  were  looked  upon 
as  fanatical,  unorthodox,  superstitious,  be- 
cause of  this  belief.  Is  it  because  it  did  not 
happen  in  our  church  that  we  are  to  say  : — 
"Oh,  it  is  all  stuff;  they  are  a  set  of  fana- 
tics." But  there  is  another  thing  that 
young  Smith  said  the  angel  told  him,  that 
is  more  remarkable,  if  made  up,  than  the 
other  ;  it  was  a  prophecy : — "That  his  name 
should  be  both  good  and  evil  spoken  of 
among  all  nations,  kindreds,  tongues  and 
people."  How  did  this  young  boy  know 
that  his  name  should  be  spoken  of  among 
all  people,  every  nation  ; — by  his  friends  as 
being  a  good  man  and  by  his  enemies  as 
being  an  evil  man  ?  The  prophecy  is  clear 
and  distinctj  the  fulfillment  is  complete — 
no  one  to  gainsay  it.  The  wonderful  state- 
ment made  by  the  then  boy  and  the  sub- 
sequent fulfillment  should  cause  the  most 
incredulous  to  stop  and  think  before  he 
condemns.  How  did  he  know  this?  Take 
the  greatest  villain  on  the  earth  or  the  most 
worthy  man,  are  their  names,  even  in  this 
later  time  of  the  easy  transmission  of  news, 
known  among  all  nations,  kindreds,  tongues 
and  peoples.  Strike  the  heart  of  Africa 
and  the  Mohammetan  country,  and  they 
have  all  heard  of  Smith,  and  they  hold  him 
in  one  relation  or  the  other.  But  go  to 
the  heart  of  these  same  countries  and  they 
have  not  even  heard  of  the  terrible  charac- 
ter that  struck  down  our  President,  who,  Ml 
seems,  in  his  iniquity,  would  have  been 
known  all  over  the  world  if  any  one  pos- 
sibly could  by  this  means.  And  yet  this 
young  boy  stated  early  in  1823  that  the 
angel  said  to  him  that  his  "Name  should 
be  both  good  and  evil  spoken  of  among  all 
nations,  kindreds,  tongues  and  people. 
Can  you  point  me  to  a  prophecy  in  the 
Bible  that  has  been  more  literally  fulfilled? 

Now  I  propose  to  examine  my  opponent's- 
alibi,  as  he  has  rested  his  whole  case  upon 
that,  and  you  watch  and  see  if  he  is  not 
driven  from  his  "SPAULDINO  STORY"  AND. 


80 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


CHARACTER!!  I  referred  to  the  fact  that 
this  old  falsehood  was  met  and  vanquished 
when  it  was  first  circulated  in  1835  and  1836, 
and  later  in  1839  and  1840 ;  but  he  replies 
that  I  must  meet  it  here  and  not  tell  abcut 
what  has  been  done.  Very  well,  my  affirm- 
ative arguments  being  in  no  way  answered, 
lean  well  afford  to  meet  it  here;  so  now 
for  the  Spauidirtg  story  as  a  theory.  Will 
you  reply  to  my  arguments  upon  this?  We 
will  see. 

The  following  are  the  claims  made  for 
that: 

first,  That  one  Solomon  Spaulding,  a 
Presbyterian  clergyman,  about  the  year 
]811,  lived  at  Conneaut,  Ohio,  and  being  in 
poor  health,  for  diversion  in  his  invalid 
state,  wrote  a  story  and  left  it  in  manuscript 
form,  which  was  like  the  present  Book  of 
Mormon,  except  as  to  errors. 

Second.  That  from  Conneaut,  Ohio,  he 
removed  to  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  in  1812,  and 
while  there  handed  the  manuscript  of  this 
tstory  to  a  publisher  by  the  name  of  Robert 
Patterson  for  examination  and  publication. 

Third,  That  the  manuscript  instead  of 
being  published  was  returned  to  Mr.  Spauld- 
ing, and  in  the  year  1814  he  left  Pittsburg 
and  went  to  Amity,  Pa.,  where  he  died  in 
the  year  1816,  when  his  effects,  including 
the  manuscript,  fell  into  the  hands  of  his 
widow. 

fourth.  That  at  the  time  the  manuscript 
was  in  the  office  of  publisher  Patterson,  one 
Sidney  Rigdon  was  engaged  at,  or  in  some 
way  connected  with  said  printing  office, 
and  in  some  way  got  the  manuscript  and 
purloined  the  same. 

fifth,  That  Sidney  Rigdon  at  the  time, 
knew  of  Joseph  Smith  and  had  opportunity 
to  get  this  manuscript  to  him,  and 

Sixth,  That  Rigdon  being  a  preacher  at 
the  time  did  this  in  order  to  start  a  new 
church  and  have  a  basis  for  his  scheme. 

Before,  during  this  discussion,  I  showed 
by  the  illustration  of  "a  chain  of  title"  to 
property,  if  the  chain  was  perfect  in  all  its 
parts  it  would  stand  the  test,  but  if  faulty 
or  disconnected  by  a  single  transfer  it  would 
not.  In  the  examination  of  one's  title  if 
you  are  able  to  show  that  one  link  in  the 
chain  is  not  a  true  one,  forged,  or  obtained 
through  fraud,  the  whole  thing  is  void. 
But  in  this  pretentious  claim  of  the  Spauld- 
ing Manuscript,  which  he  has  set  up,  I  am 
not  only  able  to  prove  that  one  link  is  at 
fault,  but  that  the  entire  chain  is  bad,  and 
every  link  at  fault;  from  the  inception  by 
Philaster  Hulburt,  who  had  been  twice,  as  I 
have  before  shown,  excommunicated  from 
the  Latter  Day  Saints  for  immoralities,  to 
the  conclusion  of  it  as  published  and  eom- 

gleted  by  Howe  of  Painsville,  who  had  the 
paulding  manuscript  destroyed  while  in 
his  hands.  I  enter  upon  the  investiga- 
tion with  the  hope  that  I  shall  have  your 
candid  and  unbiased  judgment  in  the  con- 
sideration of  the  evidence. 

First,  did  Spaulding  ever  write  such  a 
manuscript?  I  claim  that  he  did  not;  and 
for  proof  of  this  refer  you  first  to  their  own 
witnesses. 


1.  The  manuscript  Spaulding  is  said  to 
have  written  was  too  meager  a  thing  to  in 
any  sense  compare  with  a  manuscript  that 
would  make  a  book  the  size  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 

2.  The    character    of    the     "Manuscript 
Found,"  which  is  the  oneall  rely  upon  as 
the  romance,  was  entirely  different  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon. 

3.  He  was  such  an  invalid  at  the  time  It 
is  alleged  he  wrote  his  manuscript,  that  it 
would  have  been  impossible  for  him  consid- 
ering his    circumstances  in  life,    together 
with  his  broken  constitution,  to  nave  writ- 
ten such  a  manuscript  had  it  been  possible 
for  any  man  of  his  own  knowledge  to  write 
such  a  one  as  the  Book  of  Mormon,  which  I 
deny. 

Taking  up  the  first  reason  it  will  at  once 
be  clear  to  you  that  a  manuscript  written 
in  the  English  language,  as  they  concede 
Spaulding's  was,  to  contain  the  amount  of 
matter  that  is  included  in  the  strictly  his- 
torical part  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  would 
cover  at  least  fifteen  hundred  pages  of  fools- 
cap paper.  Was  the  "Manuscript  Found" 
such?  The  statements  of  those  who  claim 
they  saw  the  "Manuscript  Found,"  place  it 
beyond  doubt  that  it  was  no  such.  Mrs. 
McKinstry,  the  daughter  of  Solomon  Spauld- 
ing in  her  evidence  says,  that  she,  "Read 
the  manuscript  frequently  when  she  was 
about  twelve  years  of  age,  and  that  it  was 
about  one  inch  in  thickness."  She  read  it 
frequently,  so  it  could  not  have  been  very 
large.  Then  their  other  trumped  up  wit- 
nesses all,  or  nearly  all,  say  they  heard  it 
read.  Henry  Lake  heard  it  read.  John  N. 
Miller  heard  it  read  from  beginning  to  end. 
Aaron  Wright  heard  Spaulding  read  it,  etc. 
Mrs.  Matilda  Spaulding,  wife  of  Solomon 
Spaulding, states  in  her  testimony  published 
in  the  Illinois  Quincy  Whig,  that  it  was  about 
a  third  as  large  as  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
that  her  daughter  (Mrs.  McKinstry)  read  it 
frequently.  Hulburt  who  was  commission- 
ed by  Henry  Lake,  John  Miller,  Aaron 
Wright,  et  al.  (Bradeu's  witnesses),  to  go 
and  get  the  Spaulding  writing,  went  and 
got  it  he  says,  and  the  only  one  in  Spauld- 
ing's hand  writing  which  the  widow  had. 
That  he  delivered  it  to  E.  D.  Howe  of  Pains- 
ville, who  was  writing  the  book  to  break 
down  the  Mormons,  and  Howe  says,  page 
288,  of  his  book  in  describing  it,  that,  "The 
trunk  referred  to  by  the  widow  was  subse- 
quently examined  and  found  to  contain 
only  a  single  manuscript  book  in  Spauld- 
ing's hand  writing,  containing  about  one 
quire  of  paper." 

Then  according  to  the  description  of  the 
manuscript  itself  by  those  who  actually  saw 
it,  it  must  have  been  a  very  small  affair  in 
deed  in  comparison  to  the  historical  portion 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  In  fact  there  was 
no  comparison  of  the  one,  to  the  other,  what- 
ever. 

But  Howe  goes  further  with  his  descrip- 
tion and  shows  the  style,  subject,  matter, 
history,  and  all  different.  This  brings  ua 
to  notice  that  the  second  proposition  in  my 
statement  is  true.  This  agrees  with  Mrs. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


81 


Spaulding's  description  of  the  "Manuscript 
Found."  In  the  letter  to  the  Boston  Re- 
corder, she  says:  "He  (Mr.  Spaulding)  was 
enabled  (while  writing  this  manuscript) 
from  his  acquaintance  with  the  clappics  and 
uncient  history,  to  introduce  many  singular 
jiames  which  were  particularly  noticed  by 
people  and  could  readily  be  recognized  by 
them."  Page  43,  Smucker  against  the 
Mormons. 

Then  in  the  same  letter  she  says:  ''Mr. 
Spaulding  had  a  brother  John  Spaulding, 
residing  in  the  place  at  the  time,  who  was 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  work  arid  re- 
pcatedly  heard  the  whole  of  it  read.1'  What 
an  easy  thing  my  audience  for  a  man  to 
read  repeatedly,  a  manuscript  of  two  thou- 
sand pasres:  besides  it  must  have  been  the 
most  enticing  novel  ever  written  Just  to 
think  of  repeatedly  reading  such  a  manu- 
script! Now  I  hope  the  friends  won't  be  back- 
ward again  about  giving  me  their  names  for 
a  copy  of  this  enticing  book,  that  can  be  had 
for  only  one  dollar  and  a  quarter  And 
thrown  in  this  letter  is  Braden's  the- 
ory that  Mr  Smith  did  all  this  copy- 
ing, working,  digging  for  money,  travel- 
ing, studying,  planning,  delving. — what  a 
lazy  boy  !  in  order  to  start  a  church.  Ridicu- 
lous! Did  you  ever  hear  of  such  a  theory?  For 
men  to  work  for  years  and  years,  and  labor 
and  hire  men,  and  dig  holes,  and  mine  and 
sweat  in  order  to  get  an  excuse  for  starting 
a  new  church  ?  Did  not  Mr.  Campbell  start 
a  new  church  without  any  such  an  excuse  ? 
Did  not  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr.  Rigdon  have  as 
good  a  right  to  start  a  new  church  without 
all  this  as  Mr.  Campbell  or  Mr.  Wesley  or 
Mr.  Luther  or  near  a  thousand  others  who 
have  started  new  churches  since  the  time 
of  Christ?  It  seems  tome  that  starting  new 
churches  is  not  confined  simply  to  a  few 
individuals;  we  have  too  many  to  admit  of 
such  an  idea.  And  look  everywhere  you 
may  and  you  cannot  tell  which*  is  right  un- 
less you  accept  the  doctrine  which  is  taught 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  abide  by  the 
rule,  "If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom.  let  him 
ask  of  God,  who  giveth  to  all  men  liberally 
and  upbraideth  not,  and  it  shall  be  givon 
him."  But  my  friend  does  not  accept  lliat 
doctrine. 

Then  again,  "  the  old  neighbors  were  ena- 
bled to  identify  it  by  reason  of  the  names 
taken  from  the  classical  authors  and  an- 
cient history."  Were  enabled  to  identity 
it  by  reason  of  these  historical  and  classical 
names !  Here  you  have  set  out  by  Mrs. 
Spaulding  herself  how  they  were  enabled 
to  identify  the  work.  What  name  have 
they  got?  Why  he  found  one  the  other 
night,  I  believe  it  was  "  Mormon."  It  was 
a  Greek  word.  Will  you  show  me  the  word 
'•Mormon"  in  Greek  as  used  in  the  Book 
vf  Mormon? 

Mr.  Braden  :    Yes  sir. 

Mr.  Kelley:  You  say  you  will  but  you 
will  never  do  it. 

Mr.  Braden  :    That  is  to  be  seen. 

Mr.  Kelley:  There  is  such  a  term  as 
Mormo  that  they  think  that  the  Greeks  used 
just  the  same  as  we  use  the  word  "Mor- 


mon." But  to  any  person  who  will  think  a 
moment  it  is  evident  there  is  not  and  never 
was  the  slightest  connection.  The  word 
Mormo  was  used  to  denote  a  hobgoblin,  bug- 
bear, object  of  fright,  etc  Mormon  was 
simply  a  man's  name  as  used  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  the  name  of  a  place  of  pleasure, 
etc.,  and  in  no  sense  as  the  Greek  word 
Mormo  was  used  The  similarity  of  sound 
between  the  two  when  they  are  written  in 
English  argues  nothing  I  can  show  that 
words  of  similar  sound,  so  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned in  different  languages  have  no  rela- 
tion whatever  either  in  derivation  or  mean- 
ing, and  are  never  used  by  the  people  to  in- 
dicate the  same  or  similar  things  That 
idea  about  the  Greek  word  Mormo  being  the 
root  of  the  word  Mormon  as  found  in  this 
book  is  simply  ridiculous.  A  thing  gotten 
up  by  certain  persons  and  tried  to  apply  to 
the  word  as  used  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  to 
deceive  the  ignorant.  But  I  will  see  when 
Mr  Braden  brings  it 

But  again  :  "  Spaulding's  manuscript 
represented  an  idolatrous  people,"  they  say. 
The  Book  of  Mormon  does  not  The  Spauld- 
ing "Manuscript  Found"  was  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  this  Dr.  P.  Hulburt  who 
had  got  up  all  these  lying  affidavits,  about 
Smith  and  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  he 
takes  it  to  Howe  of  Painsville,  Ohio,  the  very 
place  where  they  are  trying  to  destroy  the 
authenticity  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  Howe 
because  he  was  mad  about  his  wife  and  sis- 
ter joining  the  church,  and  Hulburt  be- 
cause he  had  been  cut  off  from  the  church, 
—they  take  the  manuscript  under  promise 
to  Mrs.  Davidson  that  they  would  publish 
and  send  her  a  copy  and  divide  proceeds ; 
and  when  she  gets  no  returns  she  writes  to 
them  about  it  and  they  answer  her:  "It 
did  not  read  like  we  expected  and  we  did 
not  use  it."  How  about  the  manuscript 
now?  Traced  right  into  the  hands  of  the 
bitterest  opposers  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
by  your  own  witnesses,  and  long  after  the 
publication  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  This 
is  the  manuscript  story  which  they  are 
claiming  was  in  the  hand-writing  of  Solo- 
mon Spaulding  who  died  before  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  whose 
hand  writing  could  he  identified  by  hia 
manuscript  sermons,  as  Mrs  Spaulding  and 
Mrs  McKinstry  testified  ; — and  from  such  a 
manuscript  as  this  ten  words  preserved  in 
Mr  Solomon  Spaulding's  hand-writing 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  have  identified 
the  two,  if  the  Book  of  Mormon  was>  the 
same,  beyond  all  dispute  whatever — and 
these  opposers  with  their  statements  and 
affidavits  in  their  hands,  deliberately  de» 
stroythe  "Manuscript  Found,"  which  they 
got  from  Mrs.  Spaulding  (Davidson)  and 
maliciously  publish  their  statements  Here 
is  "old  come  to  pass,"  right  in  their  own 
hands  in  the  year  1834.  Now  who  is  the 
imposter  ;  the  deceiver?  But  further,  when 
it  is  first  published  that  Mrs.  Spaulding 
(Davidson)  claimed  the  Book  of  Mormon 
was  a  copy  of  the  manuscript  a  gentleman 
from  Illinois,  Mr.  Jesse  Harper,  visits  at 
once  Mrs  (Spaulding)  Davidson,  Mrs. 


82 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


McKinstry,  and  Dr.  Ely,  in  Massachusetts, 
and  interviews  these  persons,  and  writes 
his  account  to  the  Quincy  (111.)  Whiff, 
a  bitter  anti-Mormon  journal ,  stating  that 
in  the  interview  he  asked  and  received 
answers  to  the  following  questions,  to 
wit:— 

Q.  "Have  you  read  the  Book  of  Mormon? 

A.  I  have  read  some  of  it. 

Q.  Does  Mr.  Spaulding's  manuscript  and 
the  Book  of  Mormon  agree? 

A    I  think  some  of  the  names  are  alike. 

Q.  Does  the  manuscript  describe  an  idola- 
trous or  a  rergious  people? 

A    An  idolatrous  people. 

Q    Where  is  the  manuscript? 

A.  Dr.  P  Hulburt  came  here  and  took  it, 
said  he  would  get  It  printed  and  let  me 
have  one-half  of  the  profits. 

Q.  Has  Dr.  Hulburt  got  the  manuscript 
printed? 

A.  I  have  received  a  letter  stating  that 
it  did  not  read  as  they  expected  and  they 
should  not  print  it. 

Q.  How  large  was  the  manuscript  ? 

A.  About  one-third  as  large  as  the  Book 
of  Mormon." 

(To  Mrs.  McKinstry.) 

Q.  "How  old  were  you  when  your  father 
wrote  the  manuscript? 

A.  About  five  years  of  age. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  read  the  manuscript? 

A  When  I  was  about  twelve  years  of  age 
1  used  to  read  it  for  a  diversion. 

Q.  Did  the  manuscript  describe  an  idola- 
trous or  a  religious  people  ? 

A.  An  idolatrous  people. 

Q  Does  the  manuscript  and  Book  of 
Mormon  agree? 

A.  I  think  some  of  the  names  agree. 

Q.  \re  you  certain  that  some  of  the 
names  agree? 

A    I  am  not. 

Q  Have  you  ever  read  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon ? 

A    I  have  not." 

Then  the  following  interview  with  Mrs. 
McKinstry  on  April  4th,  1882,  in  Washing- 
ton City  •— 

Q.  "Mrs.  McKinstry,  have  you  the  Man- 
uscript Found,  Mr.  Solomon  Spaulding  is 
said  to  have  written,  in  your  possession? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  What  became  of  it? 

A.  My  Mother  delivered  it  up  for  pub- 
lication to  a  Mr.  Hulburt  who  came  to  our 
house  in  Mass,  for  it,  bearing  letters  of  in- 
troduction from  my  uncle,  a  Mr.  Sabine,  a 
Jawyer  in  New  York  State. 

Q.  Why  do  you  not  get  the  manuscript 
again  ? 

A.  I  have  sent  for  it  but  Hulburt  claims 
hedi«l  not  get  any. 

Q.  Does  Hulburt  say  he  did  not  get  any 
manuscript  from  your  mother? 

A.  That  is  what  he  claims  now. 

Q.  How  do  you  account  for  the  fact  Mrs. 
McKinstry  that  your  father,  while  being 
such  a  good  man  and  a  minister,  should 
'"•  Hte  such  a  bad  book  as  the  Buok  of  Mor- 
mon ? 

A.  Well  we  never  could  account  for  that. 


Q.  Could  you  identify  the  manuscript 
was  it  now  produced  ? 

A    I  don't  think  I  could. 

Q.  Have  you  any  of  the  old  writings  and 
manuscripts  of  Mr.  Spaulding? 

A.  Yes.  I  have  some  leaves  of  his  ser- 
mons. 

Q.  And  with  these  you  think  you  could 
not  identify  the  manuscript? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  think  not. 
(Mrs.  Col.  Seaton,  who  is  present  at  the  in- 
view.) 

Why  yes,  mother,  if  you  have  his  writ- 
ing you  ousrht  to  identify  it. 

Mrs.  McKinstry:     Well,  perhaps  I  could. 

Q  Was  it  written  on  common  foolscap 
paper  or  the  clergymen  note  paper? 

A.  It  must  have  been  written  on  foolscap 
as  they  had  no  clergymen  note  paper  in 
those  days. 

Q.  How  do  you  come  to  rememher  any  of 
the  names  that  were  in  that  manuscript? 

A.  Well,  I  suppose  I  should  not,  but  Mr. 
Spaulding  had  a  way  of  making  a  very 
fancy  capital  letter  at  the  beginning  of  a 
chapter  and  I  remembered  the  name  Lehi,  I 
think  it  was,  from  its  being  written  this 
way." 

That  is  the  way  she  identified  it — on 
account  of  the  word  Lehi  beginning  with  a 
very  fancy  capital  letter.  Suppose  instead 
of  being  Lehi  the  word  had  been  Levi. 
Would  not  the  capital  letter  bave  been  just 
the  same  and  mignt  there  not  have  been  the 
same  fancy  about  it?  And  still  a  different 
thing  altogether.  Instead  of  being  Levi, 
suppose  it  had  been  Lincoln.  There  would 
have  been  the  same  fancy  capital  letter. 
But  perhaps  I  ought  to  read  the  evidence 
without  comment,  and  make  my  comment 
afterwards,  so  I  return  to  that.  The  ques- 
tion is  asked  : — 

Q.  "  When  did  you  first  think  about  the 
names  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  man- 
uscript agreeing? 

A.  My  attention  was  first  called  to  it  by 
some  parties  who  asked  me  if  I  did  not  re- 
member it,  and  then  I  remembered  that 
they  were." 

These  parties  were  the  old  neighbors; 
Aaron  Wright,  Miller,  etc. 

Did  you  ever  have  a  case  in  court,  my 
friends?  If  so,  did  you  ever  know  the  man 
on  the  other  side  to  go  to  certain  parties  and 
say,  "Now,  see  here,  you  are  a  good  friend 
of  mine  and  I  am  in  a  little  trouble  and  I 
guess  you  know  something  to  help  me  out. 
Don't  you  remember  that  a  certain  fellow 
upon  a  certain  day  said  a  certain  thing?— 
And  I  will  tell  you  what  it  was  now,  and 
see  if  you  don't  remember  it?"  Why!  there 
is  so  much  evidence  manufactured  in  this 
country  in  that  way  that  corruption  is  be- 
ginning to  rule  insomuch  that  it  is  thought 
that  never  in  the  history  of  the  world  De- 
fore,  did  so  much  evil  creep  into  courts  of 
justice,  by  reason  of  ihe  manufacturing  of 
testimony  and  suborning  oi  witnesses. 
I  again  call  your  attention  to  the  thought: — 
After  her  attention  was  called  toil  by  these 
good,  estimable,  best  citizens,  etc..  then  she 
thought  she  remembered  it. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE, 


83 


Q.  "Was  you  acquainted  with  Joseph 
Smith? 

A.  No.  I  never  heard  tell  of  him  till  I 
heard  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Q,.  Was  Sidney  Rigdon  ever  about  your 
father's  house? 

A.  No,  I  never  saw  him." 

August,  1883,  is  another  important  inter- 
view. 

I  will  give  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Howe,  but 
not  claim  it  as  evidence  if  my  friend  upon 
the  other  side  of  the  question  will  put  him 
on  the  stand  here  for  cross-examination.  I 
want  you  to  listen  to  his  examination.  It 
is  as  follows  : — 

Q.  "Mr.  Howe,  did  Hulburt  bring  the 
manuscript  to  you  he  got  of  Mrs.  (Spauld- 
ing) Davidson? 

A.  Yes,  he  brought  one ;  but  it  was  not 
the  one  we  wanted  ;  it  only  told  about  some 
tribes  of  Indians  and  their  wars  along  the 
lakes  here  and  pretended  to  be  the  writing 
of  some  shipwrecked  crew.  It  was  the  wars 
of  the  Winnebagoes,  Chicagoes  or  Niagaries, 
I  believe. 

Q,.  Why  did  you  not  publish  it? 

A.  Because  it  did  not  do  us  any  good." 

Now,  who  has  got  the  stolen  property 
that  he  has  made  such  a  parade  over?  These 
other  parties  who  are  seeking  for  evidence 
in  order  to  show  that  Mr.  Smith  has  stolen 
property  in  his  possession  go  and  get  the 
original  manuscript — the  manuscript  in  the 
handwriting  of  Solomon  Spaulding — in  the 
penmanship  of  Solomon  Spaulding,  and 
they  bring  it  here  to  Painsville,  Ohio,  and 
it  is  traced  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Howe  and 
Mr.  Hulburt,  the  ones  that  are  determined 
to  crush  out  the  faith  of  the  church : — And 
what  do  they  do?  Publish  it?  Keep  it? 
Preserve  it?  'Oh,  no !  "They  did  not  use 
it."  Why  did  they  not  use  it?  The  reason 
is  too  evident  to  require  naming.  Ten  words 
preserved  in  Mr.  Spaulding's  handwriting 
would  have  been  sufficient  to  have  identi- 
fied the  two  if  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  the 
same.  And  these  opposers,  both  sworn  ene- 
mies of  Mr.  Smith  and  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon with  their  affidavits  in  their  hands, 


deliberately  destroyed  the  "Manuscript 
Found,"  which  they  ?ot  from  Mrs.  (Spauld- 
ing) Davidson,  and  published  their  state- 
ments and  affidavits,  instead  of  the  manu- 
script that  they  got.  Mind  you  they  got  the 
"  Manuscript  Found,"  and  the  only  oneever 
so  called  in  fact,  and  1  will  show  that  they 
did.  I  know  that  Mr.  Howe  tried  to  make 
a  dodge  afterwards  and  say  that  Spaulding 
had  another  manuscript  called  the  "Roman 
Manuscript,"  so  my  opponent  says ;  but  Mr. 
Howe  last  summer  did  not  give  it  as  the 
Roman  Manuscript,  and  I  am  prepared  to 
prove  that  he  said  it  treated  of  some  Indian 
wars  along  the  lakes  here,  too.  And  pre- 
pared to  prove  it  with  such  testimony  as 
will  impeach  him,  so  that  if  he  will 'put 
himself  under  oath,  I  can  send  him  to  the 
penitentiary  of  Ohio  for  it.  I  have  asked 
you  (Mr.  Braden)  to  put  him  on  the  stand 
here  for  examination  and  you  dare  not.  I 
make  these  statements  fearlessly,  because 
I  want  the  truth  of  this  ;  one  witness  that 
heard  him  make  such  statement  is  upon  the 
stand  here  now. 

Now,  who  is  the  imposter,  the  deceiver? 

But  I  will  continue  with  Mr.  How  e's  state- 
ment of  last  summer  :  "What  do  you  know 
personally  about  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
the  Spaul ding  story  being  the  same? 

A.  I  don't  know  anything. 

Q.  Why  did  you  publish  a  work  claiming 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  the  Spaulding 
Romance? 

A.  Because  I  could  better  believe  that 
Spaulding  wrote  it  than  that  Joe  Smith  saw 
an  angel. 

Q.  Are  those  your  grounds? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  they  are ;  and  I  want  you  to 
understand  that  you  can't  cram  the  Book 
of  Mormon  down  me." 

No,  sir!  Not  down  him.  He  is  on  Mr. 
Braden's  side. 

Q.  "Do  you  swallow  the  Bible? 

A.  That  is  my  business. 

Q.  Have  you  not  published  a  pamphlet 
which  does  not  endorse  the  Bible? 

A.  Yes,  I  hare" 

(Time  expired.) 


84 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.    BRADEN'S    EIGHTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — It  is  pretended  that  the 
plates  were  shown  to  three  witnesses  ear- 
ly in  June,  and  shortly  after  to  eight  more. 
A  contract  is  made  with  E.  B.  Grandin  of 
Palmyra,  to  publish  the  bookj  Harris  mort- 
gages his  farm  to  pay  for  printing,  and  in 
return  has  a  monopoly  of  the  new  revela- 
tion, that  is  "the  fullness  of  the  gospel." 
He  intends  "to  make  money  out  of  it  even 
If  it  is  a  lie"  he  tells  his  wife. 

The  manuscript  is  carried  to  the  printer 
with  a  great  deal  of  torn  foolery.  Smith  has 
two  guards  to  protect  his  sacred  person. 
The  manuscript  is  to  be  seen  only  by  the 
printer,  and  the  elect.  It  is  all  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  office  each  night  by  the  elect. 

Rigdon  preaches  more  wildly  than  ever. 
Is  absent  from  home  much  of  his  time.  Some 
of  his  adherents  in  Kirtland  adopt  his  com- 
munity of  goods*  and  organize  a  communi- 
ty, wash  feet,  etc. 

1830 — The  Book  of  Mormon  comes  from  the 
press  in  the  latter  part  of  the  winter, 
with  the  name  of  Joseph  Bmith  on  it 
as  "Auther  and  Proprietor."  April 
6th  the  first  Mormon  church  is  organ- 
ized at  Smith's  in  Manchester,  N.  Y. 
In  June  the  first  Mormon  conference 
is  held  in  Fayette,  N.  Y. 
Rigdon  attends  for  the  last  time  the 
Disciple  Association  of  Mahoning, 
held  in  Austintown.  Here  he  makes 
his  last  effort  to  engraft  his  hobbies 
on  to  the  movement  of  the  Disciples. 
Campbell  exposes  their  extravagant 
unscriptural  character.  Rigdon 
preaches  his  famous  sermon  on  "King 
A  hasuerus'  horse"  and  leaves  the  Dis- 
ciples forever,  utterly  soured  and  dis- 
appointed. He  remarks  to  Mr.  Aus- 
tin of  Warren  :  "I  have  done  as 
much  for  tbe  Reformation  as  Camp- 
bell or  Scott,  yet  they  get  all  the 
glory." 

He  goes  back  to  Mentor,  and  sends  for 
Pratt,  who  comes  through  Mentor  in 
August,  and  goes  from  Ri«rdon  straight 
to  Smith,  thirty  miles  off  all  public 
thoroughfares,  travels  a  great  dis- 
tance, and  reaches  Smith's  Saturday 
night,  just  as  meeting  begins,  is  con- 
verted, on  the  spot,  and  made  a 
preacher  of  Mormonism  the  next  day. 
In  October,  Pratt,  Cowdry  and  Whitmer 
come  to  Mentor.  Rigdon  pretends  to 
be  ignorant  of  the  whole  affair,  and  to 
oppose  it  for  a  day  of  so,  then  is 
miraculously  converted  by  a  silly 
vision.  In  December  he  goes  to 
Smith  in  New  York,  preaches  the 
first  and  only  Mormon  sermon  ever 
preached  in  Palmyra.  Is  recognized 
as  the  "mysterious  stranger"  who  has 
been  visiting  Smith  during  the  last 
two  years. 


Mrs.  Davidson,  Spaulding's  wife  and 
widow,  goes  to  Munson,  Massachu- 
setts, to  live  with  her  daughter,  Mrs. 
McKinstry.  She  left  the  trunk  that 
contained  her  husband's  papers,  all 
that  she  had  of  them,  in  her  posses- 
sion, in  the  care  of  her  brother-in- 
Nw,  Jerome  Clark,  of  Hartwicke, 
New  York. 

1831 — Joseph  and  Sidney  get  a  revelation  that 
the  Mormons  should  move  to  Kirtlaed, 
Ohio,  which  is  to  be  theirs  forever. 
May  17th  the  Elders  were  sent  out  by 
twos  June  7th  the  first  endowment 
given.  The  Rigdonites  all  over 
the  Western  Reserve  fall  in  with  Mor- 
monism, and  the  imposture  is  in  full 
blast. 

June  17th,  in  obedience  to  direct  revela- 
tion, Joseph  Smith  and  a  party  start 
for  Western  Missouri  to  locate  "Zion." 
August  3rd  Joseph  locates  the  corner 
of  the  Temple  of  Zion,  three  hundred 
yards  west  of  the  Court  House  in 
Independence,  Missouri.  Floods  of 
revelations  are  poured  out.  A  city  with 
golden  streets,  a  Temple  that  never 
had  been  equalled,  and  other  wonders 
were  to  spring  up  in  that  generation. 

1832 — February  16th,  Rigdon  and  Smith 
have  a  sky-scraping  revelation.  Rig- 
don mounts  "King  Ahaauerus'  horse" 
and  cavorts  miraculously  and  gener- 
ally all  over  the  universe.  March  22, 
Rigdou  and  Smith  are  tarred  and 
feathered  in  Hirom,  Portage  county, 
by  persons  that  have  been  swindled 
by  their  lies  and  for  Smith's  amours. 
Joseph  Smith  visits  Missouri.  It  is 
high  time.  By  their  threats  and 
boasts,  the  Mormons  had  aroused  the 
Missourians.  They  were  also  in  a 
general  row  among  themselves,  over 
Rigdon's  pet  idea  —  community  of 
goods. 

1833 — March  8th.  In  order-to  keep  Sidney 
quiet,  who  finds  that  Joseph  Smith, 
whom  he  expected  to  use  as  his  tool, 
has  gobbled  all  the  results  of  their 
fraud,  Rigdon  is  made  councillor  with 
root  and  herb  quack,  F.  G.  Wil- 
liams, and  the  first  Presidency  is 
organized.  July  23,  Joseph  Smith 
lays  the  foundation  of  Kjrtland 
Temple.  Citizens  of  Missouri  extort 
a  promise  from  Mormons  that  half  of 
them  will  leave  before  January  1st, 
1834,  the  rest  before  April  1.  Octo- 
ber 30th  Missourians  destroy  ten 
Mormon  houses.  Mormons  kill  two 
Missourians  and  shed  the  first  blood 
in  the  war. 

1834— Feb.  20th.  Joseph  Smith  starts  on  a 
fool's  crusade,  with  a  band  of  men  to 
Missouri.  They  find  a  skeleton  in  a 
mound  in  Pike  county,  Ills.  Joseph 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


85 


Smith  has  a  grand  old  time  reye- 
lating  over  it.  This  crusade  which 
began  and  was  carried  on  amid  a  flood 
of  revelations  so-called,  and  had 
been  attended  with  suffering,  sick- 
nessand  death,  ends  in  a  fizzle  in  cen- 
tral Missouri.  The  fools  that  were  not 
dead  begged  their  way  home. 

Joseph  Smith,  whose  head  had  been 
made  giddy  by  his  elevation  from  a 
loafing  money  hunter  to  that  of  a  pro- 
phet, began  to  talk  about  the  saints 
conquering  the  world,  spoiling  their 
enemies,  ruling  over  the  Gentiles,  and 
announced  that  he  would  be  the  Mo- 
hammed of  the  century. 

July  29th.  Joseph  Smith  returns  to 
Kirtland  and  finds  the  saints  in  a  mis- 
cellaneous row.  Sidney  had  just 
smashed  things  in  his  absence.  He 
wanted  the  saints  to  build  him  as  fine 
a  house  as  the  prophet  had,  and  to 
give  him  a  gold  watch,  and  rig  him 
up  generally  as  fine  as  they  had  the 
prophet. 

During  this  year  a  Mormon  preacher 
had  preached  in  Conueaut,  Ohio,  and 
read  from  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Sol- 
omon Spaulding's  old  acquaintances 
recognized  his  Manuscript  Found. 
Squire  Wright  shouted  out:  "Old 
come  to  pass  has  come  to  life."  There 
was  great  excitement  over  the  discov- 
ery of  the  theft.  D  P.  Hurl  but  who 
was  getting  up  an  expose  of  Mormon- 
ism,  was  sent  by  the  citizens  of  Con- 
neaut  to  Mrs.  Davidson,  to  get  the 
manuscript  of  her  former  husband, 
Solomon  Spaulding.  She  gave  Hurl- 
but  an  order  authorizing  him  to  go  to 
Clark's,  in  Hartwicke,  N.  Y.,  where 
she  left  the  trunk  with  her  husband's 
papers,  and  get  them. 

Hurlbut  gets  a  manuscript  of  the  Man- 
uscript Found,  writes  to  Mrs.  David- 
son that  he  got  it.  He  gives  to  those 
who  sent  him  an  entirely  different 
manuscript.  Liesand  says  that  is  all 
he  obtained.  He  sells  the  manuscript 
of  Manuscript  Found  to  Mormons  kr 
$400  and  goes  to  western  Ohio  and 
buys  a  farm.  Never  answers  the  let- 
lers  of  Mrs.  Davidson  and  her  daugh- 
ter in  regard  to  the  manuscript  he 
obtained. 

1835— Feb.  14.  The  first  quorum  of  apostles 
were  ordained  in  Kirtland,  and  Young 
and  Kimball  were  among  the  holy 
number.  Classes  of  instruction  and 
schools  of  prophets  were  established. 
Orson  Pratt  invents  a  new  celestial 
alphabet  for  the  saints.  Why  did  he 
not  adopt  the  reformed  Egyptian  from 
Smith's  plates?  Mormons  have  a 
craze  of  studying  Hebrew.  What 
need  was  there  for  that  among  people 
who  had  the  gift  of  tongues?  Rigdon 
delivers  six  lectures  on  faith.  All 
their  sense  and  the  scriptural  ideas 
in  them  are  what  he  heard  among  the 
Disciples.  They  are  about  the  only 
sensible  thing  iu  Mor monism — that 


is  after  Rigdon 's  Mormon  stuff  had 
been  thrown  out.  Mormons  have 
tried  to  rob  Rigdon  of  the  credit  of 
being  author  of  these  lectures,  and 
give  it  to  Joseph  Smith.  Rigdon  did 
the  lion's  work  in  bringing  down  the 
game  and  Joseph  took  the  lion's  share, 
and  scarcely  left  to  Rigdon  the  borie* 
that  the  lion  leaves  for  the  jackal. 
1836 — Kirtland  Temple  finished  at  a  cost  of 
$40,000,  dedicated  March  29.  Smith 
pretends  that  he  sees  the  house  full 
of  angels — that  a  pillar  of  fire  was  seen 
on  the  temple — that  outsiders  heard  a 
great  noise — that  caused  them  to  flock 

-  to  the  Temple.  That  the  Mormons 
spoke  with  tongues.  That  Jesus. 
Moses,  Elias,  —  who  was  he, —and 
Elijah  appeared  to  him,  gave  him 
keys  of  priesthood,  which  had  been 
promisea  years  before. 

June  29.  The  Mormons  in  Clay  county, 
Missouri,  are  requested  to  move  to 
Davis,  Jackson,  and  Caldwell  counties, 
because  they  had  been  impudent,  dom- 
ineering, and  had  encroached  on  the 
rights  of  the  rest  of  the  citizens. 
They  wisely  decided  to  move  and  do 
so,  and  are  kindly  treated  by  the 
Missourians. 

1837 — In  January,  Orson  Hyde  and  Kimball 
are  sent  to  England  as  missionaries. 

In  the  spring  the  Mormon  Wild  Cab 
Bank  is  started  in  violation  of  law 
without  a  charter.  The  Mormons 
have  a  big  hotel,  tannery,  mill,  fac- 
tory, big  stores  and  big  things  general. 
Jy.  Smith  and  other  leaders  build 
fine  houses,  live  like  nabobs  and  dress 
like  fops  on  other  peoples'  money  and 
goods  obtained  by  credit,  fraud  and 
rascality.  Things  are  booming  in 
Kirtland. 

In  November  Joseph's  Wild  Cat  Bank, 
his  printing  office,  his  big  store,  his 
mills,  his  big  land  speculation,  blew 
up  generally.  Rigdon  and  Smith  are 
fined  one  thousand  dollars  each  for 
their  swindling  bank  frauds.  Print- 
ting  office  levied  on  and  Smith  de- 
clared insolvent  with  all  his  revela- 
tions. 

The  printing  office  sold.  The  Mormons 
burn  the  printing  office  and  the  Meth- 
odist church. 

1838— January  12th,  Smith  and  Rigdon  ligh^ 
out  in  the  night  to  escape  the  peni- 
tentiary for  swindling  and  fraud. 

They  arrivein  Missouri  in  Marfh.  They 
scatter  the  saints  over  several  counties 
in  order  to  obtain  political  ascendency. 
The  Missourians  begin  to  be  alarmed, 
when  they  see  that  the  Mormons  elect 
none  but  Mormons,  and  that  their 
property  and  rights  are  taken  from 
them,  and  Mormons  will  give  them 
no  protection. 

Smith  who  had  tried  to  seduce  a  woman 
in  Pennsylvania,  and  who  had  much 
trouble  iu  Kirtland  about  his  intrigues 
with  beautiful  sisters,  now  began  to 
fell  his  confidents  that  he  had  received 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


arevelation  In  favor  of  spiritual  wifery, 
Rigdon's  doctrine. 

'Rigdon,  Smith,  Cowdery  and  other  lead- 
ing Mormons  had  practised  lewdness 
and  adultery  and  Rigdon  defended  it 
with  his  spiritual  wifery.  Now  Smith 
told  his  intimates  that  hehad  received 
a  revelation  sanctioning  it.  He  did 
not  reduce  his  revelation  to  writing 
but  he  practised  its  ideas  more  openly. 

This  was  one  objection  that  Missouri- 
ans  urged  to  Mormons.  Their  loose 
conduct  and  family  relations  and  the 
illegitimate  children  among  them. 

July  4th.  Rigdon  delivers  his  bom- 
bastic harangue,  that  the  Mormons 
call  "Sidney's  Salt  Sermon."  He 
mounts  King  Ahasuerus'  horse  and 
cavorts,  breathing  defiance  and  de- 
struction to  Missouriansand  apostates. 

The  Danite  Band  is  organized  with 
Smith's  sanction  and  authority,  under 
David  Patton,  one  of  the  twelve  apos- 
tles. Dr.  Arvard,  a  leading  Mormon, 
instructs  them  that  it  is  their  mission 
to  defend  Mormons  in  their  crimes, 
by  lying,  stealing,  perjury,  profanity 
and  murder. 

Oliver  Cowdery,  Martin  Harris  and 
David  Whitmer,  the  three  witnesses 
charging  with  lying,  stealing,  counter- 
feiting and  defaming  Smith  are  cut  off. 

Orson  Hyde,  T.  B.  Marsh,  W.  W.  Phelps 
and  many  other  leading  Mormons 
apostatize.  They  accuse  the  Mormons 
of  stealing,  murder  and  other  crimes. 
Tney  accuse  Smith  with  planning  and 
being  active  in  the  outrages  of  the 
Danites  and  the  rest  of  the  Mormons. 

Sidney  Rigdon  and  84  other  Mormons 
retort  by  accusing  the  apostates  with 
many  infamous  crimes.  Outsiders 
conclude  that  rogues  have  fallen  out 
and  decent  people  are  learning  the 
facts.  That  both  sides  tell  the  truth 
on  each  other. 

Several  quarrels  occur  between  Missou- 
rians  and  Mormons.  The  Mormons 
steal  eighty  stand  of  arms  at  Rich- 
mond, Mo.  They  fire  on  the  inhabi- 
tants at  Crooked  River,  and  kill  sev- 
eral. The  inhabitants  return  the  fire 
and  kill  Patton,  the  Mormon  Com- 
mander. 

Sept.  30.  In  retaliation  for  the  murder 
of  their  companions,  the  militia  mas- 
sacre and  outrage  Mormons  at  Hahn's 
Mill. 

The  Mormons  are  driven  out  of  Mis- 
souri. Are  given  homes,  food,  cloth- 
ing and  sympathy  by  the  people  of 
11  linois.  This  should  be  remem  bered. 
'The  citizens  of  the  Western  Reserve, 
Ohio,  treated  them  kindly  until  Mor- 
mon conduct  exasperated  them  be- 
yond endurance. 

The  Missourians  were  glad  to  see  their 
country  settle  up  until  Mormon  out- 
rages, insolence  and  crime  enraged 
them.  Then  their  conduct  became 
outrageous,  but  Mormons  began  the 
trouble, 


The  people  of  Illinois  were  lavish  in 
their  kindness  and  favors.  No  emi- 
grants were  ever  loaded  with  favors 
as  were  the  Mormons  by  the  people 
of  Illinois. 

Smith  was  arrested  by  the  militia,  who 
were  determined  to  shoot  him.  He 
and  leading  Mormons  handed  over  to 
civil  authorities.  They  allow  them  to 
escape  believing  that  to  be  the  best 
way  to  get  rid  of  them. 

1839— March  25,  Brigham  Youngand  others 
relay  the  corner-stone  of  the  Temple. 
The  Elders  cut  off  many  that  had 
been  leading  Mormons,  for  crimes  they 
charged  them  with. 

MM.V  9.  Smith  goes  to  Commerce,  Illi- 
nois. Dr.  Galland  gives  him  a  great 
tract  of  land.  Smith  immediately  gets 
a  revelation  that  Zion  is  on  his  land. 
He  calls  the  Mormons  to  his  land,  and 
sells  to  them  what  was  given  to  him, 
and  becomes  uncommonly  rich  for  that 
day  and  country. 

September,  Brigham  Young  and  Kim- 
bull  are  sent  to  England.  Orson  Pratt 
does  not  go  although  revelation  said 
he  would. 

October.  Smith  goes  to  Washington  to 
get  redress  from  the  general  govern- 
ment for  wrongs  to  the  Mormons  in 
Missouri. 

1840—  A  pril  21.  The  name  of  Commerce  is 
changed  by  revelation  to  Nauvoo, 
which  in  Smith's  reformed  Egyptian 
means  beautiful. 

The  Mormons  began  to  build  a  temple 
at  Nauvoo,  although  revelation  had 
declared  that  a  temple  should  be  built 
in  no  other  place  than  at  Zion,  near 
Independence,  Mo. 

October,  Mormons  petition  for  a  char- 
ter. It  is  granted,  They  are  given  a 
charter  granting  them  powers  thatno 
government  but  an  absolute  despotism 
exercises. 

1841— February.  The  charter  goes  into  op- 
eration. Nauvoo  is  organized  an  in- 
dependent nation  almost  under  it. 

Nauvoo  Legion  is  organized  with  Smith 
as  Lieutenant  General,  and  with  as 
many  Major  Generals,  Brigadier  Gen- 
erals and  Colonels,  as  would  have 
officered  both  armies  in  our  civil  war. 

April  6.  The  corner-stone  of  Nauvoo 
Temple  laid  with  great  military  pa- 
rade, by  Smith,  although  he  had  de- 
clared not  ten  years  before  that  the 
oialy  Temple  that  should  be  built  and 
that  speedily,  was  at  Zion  near  inde- 
pendence, Mo. 

1842 — Smith  sends  his  Danite  assassin,  Port 
Rockwell,  as  he  said,  '•  to  fulfill 
prophecy  "in  assassinating  Ex-Gov. 
Boggs  of  Missouri. 

Smith  and  other  leading  Mormons  prac- 
ticed spiritual  wifery  still  more  open- 
ly. It  leads  to  trouble  between  him 
and  his  wife.  She  drives  his  concu- 
bines out  of  the  house. 
1843— in  January  Smith  uses  Jacobs  as  a 
cat's-paw  to  try  the  mass  of  uninitia- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE 


ted  Mormons,  in  regard  to  polygamy. 

Smith  and  Jacobs  select  all  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament  that  refer  to  polyg- 
amy, and  publish  them  in  the  "Wasp" 
a  Nauroo  paper,  with  comments,  and 
special  pleading  justifying  polygamy. 
It  creates  great  excitement  among  the 
Mormons,  that  are  not  admitted  be- 
hind the  curtain  of  its  mysteries. 

May  11,  1843,  Smith  sealed  to  Eli/a  Pat- 
ridge,  Emily  Patridge,  Maria  Law- 
rence, and  Sarah  Lawrence,  in  the 
presence  of  Emma  Smith,  his  wife, 
and  Lovinia  Smith  his  brother  Hyram 
Smith's  daughter,  by  James  Adams  a 
High  Priest  of  Mormonism. 

Smith  hypocritically  denied  any  con- 
nection with  the  doctrine  avowed  by 
Jacobs,  and  denounced  it.  But  he  had 
taught  it  to  too  many — had  practiced 
it  too  long,  and  with  too  many — had 
sealed  too  many  in  polygamy,  too 
many  leading  Mormons  had  practiced 
it  too  long,  and  too  much  for  it  to  be 
concealed. 

Too  many  others  had  learned  of  the 
practice  and  were  eager  to  gratify 
their  lusts  as  Smith  had  done,  and  as 
other  leaders  had  done.  Smith's  wife 
and  others  had  to  be  pacified  and  qui- 
eted. 

July  12.  Smith  dictated  to  Wm.  Clay- 
ton the  infamy,  that  he  blasphemous- 
ly called  "A  Revelation  in  liegard  to 
Celestial  Marriage." 

Joseph  C.  Kingsbury  and  N.  K.  Whit- 
ney took  a  .copy  of  it.  Then  it  was 
showed  to  Joseph's  wife.  The  indig- 
nant and  outraged  wife  denounced  it 
as  from  hell  and  burned  it. 

Kim  ball,  Hyram  Smith,  Hyde,  and  at 
last  the  Pratts  accepted  it. 

August  12.  The  revelation  is  accepted 
and  indorsed  by  the  twelve  in  High 
Council. 

1844 — February.  Smith  announces  himself 
as  candidate  for  the  Presidency  of  the 
United  States,  to  the  great  delight  of 
the  Saints. 

Trouble  had  been  brewing  between  the 
Mormons  and  the  people  of  Illinois, 
who  received  them  so  generously  and 
kindly.  The  Mormons  elect  Mor- 
mons only  to  office  in  Hancock  county. 

They  had  the  entire  control  of  all  ad- 
ministration of  justice  in  Nauvoo. 
The  rights  of  citizents  were  outraged 
and  they  could  get  no  redress.  They 
lost  property  and  traced  it  to  Nauvoo, 
and  their  attempts  to  recover  it  only 
exposed  then1  to  danger  in  Nauvoo, 
and  to  retaliation  and  injury  from  the 
Mormons. 

Mormons  were  insolent  and  tried  to 
drive  Gentiles  out  of  the  entire  coun- 
try that  they  had  control  of.  The 
law  and  the  rights  of  the  others  were 
trampled  on  by  Mormons,  until  the 
outraged  people  of  Illinois  rose  in 
arms  in  self-defense. 

In  addition    to  this   the  tstimony    of 
,  Martha  Brotherton  and  scores 


of  others  in  regard  to  the  pollutions 
of  Smith  and  the  leading  Mormons 
in  the  Endowment  Rooms,  and  their 
polygamy  or  spiritual  wifery,  in- 
creased the  indignation  of  an  incensed 
people. 

April.  Smith  tries  to  seduce  Nancy 
Rigdon  the  daughter  of  Sidney  Rig- 
don  the  author  of  the  doctrine  of 
spiritual  wifery — the  wife  of  Wm. 
Law— the  wife  of  Dr.  Foster  and 
others.  The  incensed  husbands  and 
fathers  start  a  paper  the  "Nauvoo 
Expositor"  to  expose  Smith  and  his 
confederates  in  their  infamies. 

June.  The  first  number  contained  the 
affidavits  of  sixteen  ladies  of  the 
highest  standing  in  Nauvoo,  testify- 
ing that  Smith  and  his  confederates 
in  infamy,  leading  Mormons,  had 
tried  to  seduce  them  into  lewdness 
called  spiritual  wifery. 

Smith  gets  his  tools  in  the  council  to 
pronounce  it  a  nuisance  and  orders  its 
destruction.  Law,  Foster  and  others 
flee  for  their  lives,  Dr.  Foster  flees  to 
Carthage  for  his  life  pursued  by 
Danites. 

He  sues  out  a  writ  for  Smith's  arrest. 
Mormons  prepare  to  resist.  Smith 
refuses  to  obey  the  writ. 

The  State  military  forces  propose  to 
enter  Nauvoo  and  take  Smith.  He 
flees.  Marks  and  Smith's  wife  indig- 
nantly call  him  back. 

Smith  goes  to  Carthage  declaring  that 
his  hellish  spiritual  wife  doctrine  had 
brought  him  into  the  condition  in 
which  he  stood  and  would  cost  him 
his  life. 

The  consience-smitten  guilty  wretch 
meets  his  fate  by  assassination  June 
27,  in  Carthage  jail. 

The  mass  of  the  Mormons  follow  the 
lead  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  and  that 
of  Priapus  Young  and  migrate  to 
Utah. 

Bmall  bands  follow  the  lead  of  Rigdon, 
Law,  Cutler,  Strang,  and  others 
during  the  years  from  1844  to  1852. 
1850— William  Smith,  brother  of  Joseph, 
calls  a  conferance  in  Covington,  Ken- 
tucky. 

1852 — June  1.  A  conference  held  in  Beliot, 
Wis.  through  the  efforts  of  J.  W. 
Briggs. 

In  October   a  conference  held  in   La- 
fayette county,  Wisconsin. 
1853 — In  January  the  Committee  of  Elders 
of  the  Josephites  issue  a  manifesto  to 
reject  polygamy. 

April  16.  Conference  in  Lafayette 
county,  Wisconsin.  Nothing  special 
seems  to  have  been  done. 
I860 — In  April  at  the  conference  at  Am  boy, 
Illinois,  Joseph  Smith,  son  of  the 
prophet — so  called — took  his  father's 
place  in  that  portion  of  the  Mormons 
who  called  themselves;  "The  Reor- 

Eunized   Church  of   Jesus    Christ  «f 
atter  day  Saints,"  who  reject  Pria- 
pus Young  and  his  polygamy. 


88 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


I860  to  1884 — the  record  is  merely  a  record 
of  Conferences  and  no  important  or 
startling  events  are  to  be  recorded. 

Unless  it  be  the  visit  of  Joseph  III  to 
Utah  and  his  discussion  in  his  paper 
with  the  Brighamites  over  the  issue 
11  Was  Joseph  Smith  II  the  author  of 
polygamy,  and  the  revelation  in  favor 
of  so  called  celestial  marriage  dated 
July  12,  1843. 

In  this  decussion  Joseph  III  comes  out 
badly  worsted.  While  one  may  sym- 
pathize with  his  desire  to  rescue  his 
father's  name  from  infamy,  the  facts 
of  history  are  against  him. 

QUESTIONS   FOB  KELLEY. 

T.  Do  you  deny  the  clear  and  positive 
declaration  of  Mrs.  8.  Spaulding,  Miss 
Martha  Spaulding,  John  Spaulding,  Mrs. 
John  Spaulding,  Lake,  J.  N.  Miller,  Smith, 
Wright,  Howard,  Cunningham,  Joseph 
Miller,  McKee.  Dr.  Dodd,  Jackson,  and 
Sidney  Rigdon  to  Dr.  Winter,  that  Solomon 
Spaulding  wrote  a  historical  romance  in 
Bible  style?  If  you  do,  on  what  ground 
do  you  deny  it?  Do  you  deny  that  the 
witnesses  gave  such  testimony?  Do  you 
impeach  the  witnesses  ?  Do  you  rebut  the 
testimony. 

II.  Do  you   deny  the  statement  of  the 
witnesses     concerning     the    plot    of    the 
romance?    That  it  was  precisely  as  they 
stated  it,  the  plot  in  one  other  book,  and 
only  one  other,  the  Book  of  Mormon? 

III.  Do  you  deny  the  positive  statements 
of  Mrs.  S.   Spaulding,   Miss  Spaulding,  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  J.  N. 
Miller,  Smith.  Wright,  Howard,  Cunning- 
ham, Jas.  Miller,  McKee,  Dr.  Dodd,  Jack- 
son and  Rigdon  to  Winter,  that  it   pur- 
ported to  be   a   veritable   history  of  the 
aborigines  of  America? 

IV.  Do  you  deny  the  positive  statements 
of  Mrs.  S.  Spaulding,  Miss  Spaulding,   J. 
Spauldiug,    Mrs.   J.    Spaulding,    Wright, 
Howard,  Smith,  Cunningham,  that  it  at- 
tempted to  account  for  the  construction  of 
the   antiquitea   of  America,   by   giving   a 
veritable  history  of  their  construction  ? 

V.  Do   you   deny    the   statements   of  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Smith, 
J.  N.  Miller,  Wright,  Cunningham,  Jack- 
son, that  it  attempted  to  prove  that  the 
Israelites  were  the  aborigines  of  America, 
by  giving  the  history  of  such  aborigines? 

VI.  Do  you  deny  the    statement   of  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  J.  N. 
Miller,  Wright,  Smith,  and  Jackson,  that 
Spaulding  gave  an  account  of  their  leaving 
Jerusalem,  to  start  their  migration  ? 

VII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  J.  N. 
Miller,  Smith  and  Jackson,  that  he  delin- 
eated their  journey  by  land  and  sea,  until 
they  reached  America? 

VIII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Miss 
Spaulding,  J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spauld- 
ing, Smith,  Cunningham,  and  Jackson  that 
he  represented  Lehi  ai-d  Nephi  to  be  their 
leaders? 

IX.  Do  you  deny  tne  statements  of  Mrs. 
J.  Spaulding,  J.  Spaulding  and  Jackson, 


that  tney  quarreled  and  divided  into  tw« 
parties,  the  Nephites  and  Lamanites? 

X.  Dp  you  deny  the  statements  of  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  and  Jackson, 
that  in  the  wars  between  the  Nephites  and 
Lamanites  and  between  the  parties  into 
which  these  nations  divided,  there  were 
awful  slaughters,  such  as  are  unprecedent- 
ed in  any  other  wars  ? 

XL  Do  you  deny  the  statements  of  J. 
Spaulding,  and  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding  that 
tney  buried  their  dead  after  the  awful 
slaughters  in  great  heaps,  which  caused 
the  mounds,  found  in  America? 

XII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Mrs 
S.  Spaulding  and  Jackson  that  after  these 
slaughters,    persons   who   were   sole   sur- 
vivors wrote  a  record  of  their  people? 

XIII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Mrs. 
S.  Spaulding,  Lake,  and  Jackson  that  the 
survivors  buried  the  records  in  the  earth? 

XIV.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Mrs. 
S.  Spaulding,  Lake  and  Cunningham,  that 
this  history  was  found  in  the  earth,  where 
it  had  been  buried : 

XV.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  J.  N.  Miller; 
and  Smith  that  it  gave  an  account  of  the 
civilization,  arts,  sciences,  laws  and  cus- 
toms of  the  aborigines  of  America? 

XVI.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  J. 
Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Wright 
and  Rigdon  to  Winters,  that  these  aborig- 
ines were  the  ancestors  of  our  present  In- 
dians? 

XVII.  Do  you  deny  the  statements   ol 
Miss    Spaulding,    J.    Spaulding,    Mrs.    J. 
Spaulding,    Lake,    Smith,    Wright,   J.  N. 
Miller,  Cunningham,  and  Jackson,  that  it 
contains  the  names  Nephi,   Lehi,   Laban, 
Nephite,  Lamanite,  Mormon,  Moroni,  Zara- 
hemla,  etc.? 

XVIII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  that 
in  every  instance  the  names  were  the  names 
of  the  same  places  and  persons,  with  the 
same  characteristics   and    history,   as   the 
names  in  the  Book  of  Mormon? 

XIX.  Do  you  deny  the  statements  of  Mrs. 
S.  Spaulding  Miss  Spaulding,  J.  Spaulding, 
Mrs.  J.  Spaulding,  Lake,  Jas.  Miller,  Smith, 
Cunningham,.  Jack&on,  and  Rigdon  to  Win- 
ter, that  it  was  written  in  scriptural  style? 

XX.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Mrs. 
S.  Spaulding,  J.  Spaulding,  Mrs.  J.  Spauld- 
ing, Jas.  Miller,  Lake,  and  Cunningham 
that  the  manuscript  was  rendered  absurd 
by  its    beginning   nearly    every    sentence 
w'ith:  "And  it  came  to  pass,"    "Now  it 
came  to  pass"? 

XXI.  Do  you   deny    the    statement   ol 
Jackson  that  Spaulding  got  the  nick-name 
of  "  Old  come  to  pass  "  from  this  absurdity  ? 

XXII.  Do  you  deny  the   statement   of 
Smith  that  one  party  left  Jerusalem  to  es- 
cape divine  judgments  about  to  fall  on  the 
Israelites? 

XXIII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  J. 
N.  Miller  that  one  party  landed  at  the  Isth- 
mus of  Darien,  and  called  the  land  of  Zara- 
hemla,  and  traveled  across  the  continent  to 
the  northeast? 

XXIV.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Jas. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


89 


Miller  and  McKee,  that  in  a  battle  between 
the  Amlicites  and  Lamanites  the  Amlicites 
marked  their  foreheads  with  red  crosses  to 
distinguish  them  from  their  enemies? 

XXV.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  that 
the  Spaulding  manuscript  could  have  been 
used  for  a  pretended  revelation,  an  addition 
to  the  Bible? 

XXVI.  Do  you  deny  the  fact  that  there 
never  have  been  but  two  books,  the  Spauld- 
Ing  Manuscript  Found  and  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, that  had  these  features,  that  ever  had  a 
single  one  of  them?    How  do  you  account 
for  the  fact  that  these  two  books  agree  in 
all  these  great  features,  and  in  all  particu- 
lars, except  the  religious  portion,  as  accu- 
rately as  any  author  can  reproduce  from 
memory    his  manuscript,   and  more  accu- 
rately  than  most  authors,  with    but  very 
rare  exception  could  reproduce  their  manu- 
script?      Do  you   claim    that    by  miracle 
Spaulding  wrote  exactly  what  Joseph  Smith 
had  given  to  him  by  the  angel  twenty  years 
afterwards? 

XXVII.  Do  you  deny  that  when  a  Mor- 
mon preacher  read  to  a  Couneaut  audience 
portions    of    the    Book    of    Mormon,    that 
Spaulding's  old  acquaintances    recognized 
his  Manuscript  Found? 

Do  you  deny  that  Mrs.  Davidson  declared 
as  she  gave  the  MS  of  the  Manuscript  Found 
to  Mrs.  George  Clark  to  read  that  the  Mor- 
mon Bible  was  almost  a  literal  reproduction 
of  that  manuscript? 

XXVIII.  Do  you  deny  that  Spaulding  in 
the  seven  years  prepared  several  MS   sev- 
eral   drafts    of  the  story?    That  as  James 
Miller,  Miss  Spaulding  and  Rigdou  declare 
that  he  prepared  and  sent  to  the  printer  for 
publication  a  copy  of  his  story? 

XXIX.  Do   you    deny  Mrs.  Eichbaum's 
statement  that  Rigdon  was  intimate  with 
Lambdin  and  hung    around   the    office  of 
Patterson,  where  Spaulding's  MS  was  taken, 
until  Engles,  the  foreman,  complained  of  it? 

XXX.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Mrs. 
S.  Spaulding  that  he  took  great  interest  in 
the  story? 

XXXI.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of  Jas. 
Miller,  Dr.  Dodd  and  McKee  that  Spaulding 
said  that  his  MS  had  been  stolen  and  that 
Rigdon  was  blamed  with  the  theft? 

XXXII.  Do  you  deny  the  statement    of 
Dr.  Winter  that    Rigdon  showed   him  the 
MS  in  1822  or  '3  stating  that  it,  was  a  Bible 
romance,  written  by   Spaulding.  a  Presby- 
terian preacher,  and  left  by  Spauldiug  at  a 
printers,  and  that  he  had  borrowed  it,  as  a 
curiosity? 

XXXIII.  Do   you    deny    Mrs.    Dunlap's 
statement    that  her  uncle  Rigdon  had  the 
MS  and  spent  so  much  time  on  it  that  his 
wife  threatened  to  burn  it,  and  he  replied, 
'•It  will  be  a  great  thing  some  day. 

Do  you  deny  Jeffrie's  statement  that  Rig- 
don told  him  that  he  took  Spaulding's  MS 
from  the  printers  and  gave  it  to  Smith  to 
publish? 


XXXIV.  Do  you  deny  that  Rigdon  fore- 
told the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Mormoa 
years  before  it  appeared,   to  A.   Campbell, 
A.    Bently   and    D.  Atwater — that  it  was 
dug  out  ol    the    earth,  engraved    on    gold 
plates,  was  a  history  of  the  aborigines  ot 
this  continent,  gave  a  history  of  the  origin 
of  American  antiquities — that  it  said  that 
the  gospel  had  been  preached  in  America 
in  the  first  century  of  our  era  just  as  the 
Disciples    were    then    preaching  it   on  the 
Reserve? 

XXXV.  Do  you  deny  the  positive  state- 
ment of  Z.  Rudolph  and  other  old  acquain- 
tances that  Rigdon  was  frequently  absent 
from  home  for   weeks  while    the  Book  of 
Mormon  was  being  prepared  for  the  press, 
and  gave  no  account  of  where  he  had  been? 

XXXVI.  Do  you  deny  the  statement  of 
old  acquaintances    and    neighbors    of   the 
Smiths,  Tucker,   Mrs.  Eaton,   Chase,  San- 
ders and  McAuley  that  Rigdon  was  seen  at 
Smith's  residence  before  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon appeared? 

XXXVII.  Do   you    deny    that    Rigdon 
preached  as  his  peculiar  hobbies  the  pecu- 
liar  features  of  the  Book  of  Mormon",  the 
community  of  goods,  restoration  of  spiritual 
gifts,  milleuial  ideas,  his  old  baptistic  op- 
position to  secret  societies,  etc.,  as  Green  J. 
Rudolph,  Dille  and  others  state? 

XXXVIII.  Do  you  deny  that  the  Book 
of  Mormon  approves  of   what  Rigdon  ap- 
proved of  before  its    appearance,  and  con- 
demns what  he  condemned? 

XXXIX.  Do  you  deny  that  where  he  dif- 
fers from  the  Disciples  the  Book  of  Mormon 
differs  from  them,  and  that  it  is  peculiarly 
bitter  on  those  points? 

XL.  Will  you  tell  us:  Did  Rigdon  bymir- 
iclo  preach  the  doctrines  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon before  it  appeared?  Or  did  he  interpo- 
late his  hobbies  into  the  MS  he  had  stolen 
from  Spaulding,  when  he  was  preparing  it 
to  be  used  as  a  pretended  revelation? 

XLI.  On  what  ground  do  you  assail  the 
evidence?  Do  you  deny  that  the  witnesses 
so  testified?  If  so,  specify  what  witness? 

XLII.  Do  you  assail  theii  character  or  at- 
tempt to  impeach  them?  If  so,  specify  what 
witness?  On  what  ground? 

XLIII.  D">  you  try  to  rebut  their  testi- 
mony? If  so,  what  witness  do  you  attack? 
What  rebutting  evidenee  or  witnesses  do 
you  introduce? 

XLIV.  Do  you  attempt  tp  show  defects 
in  their  testimony?  If  so,  what  witness  do 
you  assail?  What  are  the  defects  in  the  tes- 
timony of  each? 

Until  Mormons  answer  these  queries  let 
them  stop  their  brazen  sneers  at  the 
''Spaulding  story"  that  are  almost  idiotic 
in  their  lack  of  reason  or  argument.  Kelly 
will  not,  dare  not  answer  these  queries. 
The  Prophet,  the  three  I'd  Joseph  dare  not 
publish  them  in  his  paper  and  answer  them 
in  order  one  by  one. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   KELLEY'S   NINTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — In  the  concluding  speech  of 
my  opponent  on  last  evening  he  undertook 
to  show  you  that  he  had  been  fair  in  read- 
ing from  his  papers  as  I  have  been  in  my 
argument.  I  claim  that  he  ought  to  pre- 
sent in  full  his  important  statements  and 
affidavits,  especially  so,  since  they  ought 
to  be  in  the  argument  if  published,  as  they 
are  not  accessible  to  but  few  people;  and 
that  if  the  statements  in  full  are  presented 
I  claim  they  bear  the  stamp  of  condemna- 
tion upon  their  face.  To  permit  him  to 
read  a  small  portion  here,  and  then  run  the 
entire  thing  in  the  book  would  not  be  fair 
either,  as  that  would  give  him  an  undue 
advantage  in  space,  (and  time  consequent- 
ly) in  the  discussion.  Besides,  it  would 
not  be  his  matter  in  fact  and  I  would  have 
no  opportunity  of  reviewing  it  here,  and  a 
statement  or  affidavit  which  he  relies  upon 
and  wishes  his  hearers  to,  in  making  his 
affirmative  statements  good  I  claim  he 
ought  to  introduce  in  full. 

He  turns  around  and  says:  "  Kelley  has 
done  that  all  the  time,  Hasn't  be  read  a 
bit  here  and  another  bit  there  from  the 
Bible?"  Now  if  I  did  that,  without  read- 
ing or  introducing  sometime  the  full  con- 
nection, I  did  not  do  right.  But  I  deny  that 
I  have  scrapped  in  this  manner.  When  I 
have  read  to  you  from  the  Bible  I  have  read 
to  you  the  full  connection.  But  this  is 
different  from  his  affidavits  or  statements 
in  more  ways  than  one.  All  persons  have 
the  Bible  at  hand  so  that  when  a  passage  is 
cited  they  can  turn  and  read  for  them- 
selves. Again  there  is  no  contest  on  the 
Bible  here.  We  have  agreed  that  it  is  the 
standard  of  investigation,  and  I  abide  by  it 
as  heartily  as  he.  Not  so  with  his  pur- 
ported statements  and  affidavits. 

They  are  not  admitted,  but  absolutely 
denied,  and  to  come  then  and  stand  the 
test  as  evidence  they  must  appear  in  full, 
with  time,  place,  circumstances,  and 
reasons  for  making,  etc.  At  best,  they 
are  such  a  doubtful  class  of  proofs  that  the 
rules  of  evidence  regard  them  with  grave 
suspicion  from  any  standpoint,  and  courts 
pay  very  little  if  any  regard  to  them. 
They  are  not  in  their  character  to  lie  con- 
sidered in  the  naturo  of  reliable  evidence. 
Then  we  ought  to  have  in  this  discussion  a 
full,  fair  look  at  th*<m  Last  evening  in 
my  introduction  of  ovidejio»  J  read  several 
full  statements.  There  \ver«  one  or  two 
statements  of  witnessed  that  I  merely  re- 
ferred to,  but  not  those  upon  any  very  im- 
portant matter.  I  wish  to  state  another 
thing  before  entering  upon  the  argument. 
I  have  objected  throughout  this  discussion 
to  his  manner  of  misrepresenting  my  views 
to  the  audience  under  the  cloak  of  pretend- 
ing to  tell  what  I  believe.  Some  of  you 
may  have  thought  that  I  was  particular 


about  this  and  that  it  was  simply  because 
I  claimed  the  right  to  represent  my  own 
belief  and  views  and  those  of  the  Latter 
Day  Saints  that  I  have  so  strenuously  ob- 
jected. But  this  is  not  the  fact.  The  real 
reason  is,  because  I  see  my  opponent  is 
laboring  under  a  mania.  It  is  an  old  habit 
I  find  of  Mr.  Braden  of  misstating  or  at 
least  of  misunderstanding  the  views  of 
others.  He  misjudges  evidently  others  from 
reading  their  views.  I  have  before  me 
A.  Wilford  Hall's  Afic.roco*ni,  one  of  the 
ablest  journals  that  is  published  in  the 
United  States  ;  and  the  editor,  A.  Wilford 
Hall,  Ph.  B.,  in  reviewing  an  article  of 
Mr.  Bradeu  in  the  January  number,  1884, 
says :— 

"We  limply  utate  for  President  Braden's  informa- 
tion that  we  never  taught  or  thought  of  teaching  any 
such  doctrine  as  he  has  attributed  to  us.  We  never 
once  intimated  or  even  thoujjht  that  matter  was  made 
out  of  spirit.  We  never  thought  of  teaching  that  God 
took  a  portion  of  his  spirit  and  condensed  it  into  a 
material  world.  We  never  dreamt  of  teaching  that 
there  are  but  two  substances  in  the  universe,  much 
less  one,  and  that  these  two  substances  are  spirlt'and 
matter.  We  hold,  on  the  contrary,  and  distinctly 
teach  that  there  are  many  essentially  different  sub- 
stances in  the  universe  under  the  general  classification 
of  material  and  immaterial  entities,  and  that,  spirit 
essence  belongs  among  the  immaterial  substances  of 
nature.  How  President  Braden  could  deliberately 
assert  and  rep  at  it  in  different  forms  of  expression 
about  twenty  times  that  we  teach  but  one  substance, — 
spirit, — and  that  matter  came  into  existence  by  the 
condensation  of  spirit,  is  a  mystery  we  leave  the 
reader  to  solve." 

Now,  I  read  this  to  show  you  that  some- 
times ne  misapprehends  and  misstates  other 
men's  meaning,  and  I  want  him  to  be  more 
careful  when  he  undertakes  to  give  my 
views  to  the  audience,  or  be  patient  till  I 
give  them  myself.  If  he  does  not,  I  shall 
bring  some  very  serious  things  against  him 
here,  too. 

When  my  time  was  called  upon  last  even- 
ing I  had  just  finished  reading  the  state- 
ment of  Mrs.  Solomon  Spaulding,  her  daugh- 
ter Mrs.  McKinstry,  Mr.  Howe,  and  a  sec- 
ond account  of  Mrs.  McKinstry,  the  only 
persons  of  whom  we  have  any  account  who 
ever  had  knowledge  sufficient  to  testify  as 
to  the  character  of  the  manuscript  Mr. 
Spaulding  wrote  except  Hulburt ; — reading 
from  the  statements  of  the  witnesses  to 
show  what  kind  of  a  manuscript,  if  any, 
Spaulding  ever  wrote.  What  do  these  wit- 
nesses'statements  show  as  thus  read,  giving 
them  full  credit, — and  they  are  all  bitterly 
partisan  and  prejudiced  against  the  Saints? 

1.  That  the  manuscript  they  claim  Solo- 
mon Spaulding  wrote  was  about  one-third 
as  large  as  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

2.  That  this  manuscript  contained  many 
singular  names  from  the  classics  and  an- 
cient history  not  one  of  which  is  common  to 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  or  in  any  way  sim- 
lar. 

3.  That  the  Spaulding  manuscript  treated 
of  an  idolatrous  and  not  a  religious  people. 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


01 


4.  That  it  was  a  speculation  as  to  the  "ten 
tribes"  having  corue  to  this  country. 

5.  That  neither  of  the  persons  who  act- 
ually saw  the  Spaulding1  manuscript  could 
identify  a  single  word  in  it  as  being  like  the 
Book  of  Mormon. 

6.  That  the  manuscript,  whatever  it  con- 
tained, they  gave  to  Mr.  Hulburt  who  gave 
it  to  Howe,  these  being  the  two  who  were 
trying  to  get  up  a  work  against  the  Mor- 
mons. 

7.  That  afterwards  Hulburt  and   Howe 
wrote  back  word  that  they  did  not  use  it 
because  it  did  not  read  as  they  expected. 

Now  I  will  introduce  Hul hurt's  statement 
as  published  by  another  enemy  of  the  bock, 
Mr.  Patterson  of  Pittsburg.  Hulburt  writes: 

"GiBSONBURO,  OHIO.,  Aug.  19,  1879. 
"I  visited  Mrs.  Matilda  (Spaulding)  Davidson  at 
tfonson,  Mass.,  in  1834,  and  never  saw  her  afterwards. 
(  then  received  from  her  a  manuscript  of  her  hus- 
Dand's  which  I  did  not  read  but  brought  home  with 
me  and  immediately  gave  it  to  Mr.  E.  D.  Howe,  of 
Painesville,  Ohio,  who  was  then  engaged  in  preparing 
his  book,  'Mormonism  Unveiled,'  I  do  not  know 
•whether  or  not  the  document  I  received  from  Mrs.  Da- 
vidson was  Spaulding's  'Manuscript Found,'  as  I  never 
read  it;  but  whatever  it  was  Mr.  Howe  received  it 
under  the  condition  on  which  I  took  it  from  Mrs.  David- 
Bon,  to  compare  it  with  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  then 
return  it  to  her.  I  never  recei  ve_d  any  other  manuscript 
of  Spaulding's  from  Mrs.  Davidson  or  any  one  else. 
Of  that  manuscript  I  made  no  other  me  than  to  give  it, 
with  all  my  other  documents  connected  with  Mormon- 
ism,  to  Mr.  Howe.  I  did  not  destroy  the  manuscript 
nor  dispose  of  It  to  Joe  Smith  nor  to  any  other  person. 
No  promise  was  made  by  mt  to  Mrs.  Da'yidson  that  she 
•houM  receive  any  portion  of  profits  arising  from  the 
publication  of  the  manuscript  if  it  should  be  pub- 
lished. All  the  affidavits  procured  by  me  for  Mr. 
Howe's  book,  including  all  those  from  Palmyra,  N.  Y., 
were  certainly  genuine.  D.  P.  HULBOET." 

With  this  I  refer  you  to  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Howe,  Hulburt's  partner  in  the  business 
of  publishing  the  story,  as  made  by  himself, 
see  Mormonisna  Unveiled,  page  288,  as 
follows : 

"The  trunk  referred  to  by  the  widow  was  subsequent- 
ly examined,  and  found  to  contain  only  a  t>  ngle 
manu«cript  book  in  Bpaulding's  handwriting,  contain* 
ing  about  one  quire  of  paper.  This  is  a  romarce 
purporting  to  have  been  translated  from  the  Latin, 
found  on  24  rolls  of  parchment  in  a  cave  on  the  banks 
of  Conneant  creek,  but  written  in  modern  style,  and 
giving  a  fabulous  account  of  a  ship's  being  driven 
upon  the  American  coast  while  proceeding  from  Rome 
to  Britain,  a  khort  time  previous  to  the  Christian  era, 
this  country  then  being  inhabited  by  the  Indians. 
This  old  manuscript  lias  been  shown  to  severol  of  the 
foregoing  witnesses  who  recognize  it  as  Spaulding's, 
he  having  told  them  that  he  altered  his  first  plan  of 
writing,  by  going  farther  back  with  dates,  and  writing 
in  the  old  scripture  style,  in  order  that  it  might  appi  ar 
more  ancient.  They  say  that  it  bears  no  resemblance 
to  the  'Manuscript  Found.'  " 

It  was  never  taken  back  to  Mrs.  Spauld- 
ing, the  widow,  or  to  Mrs.  Mc-Kinetry,  the 
daughter,  from  whom  it  was  obtained,  and 
the  only  persons  in  existence  competent  of 
identifying  the  '  Manuscript  Found,'  but 
carried  up  to  a  few  of  the  '  old  neighbors,' 
who  were  at  war  with  the  Saints,  and  who 
said  they  heard  the  'Manuscript  Found,' 
read  twenty-three  years  before,  for  identifi- 
cation. 

They  say,  says  Howe,  it  bears  no  resem- 
blance to  the  manuscript.  But  it  is  evident 
.that  they  lied,  if  they  said  so,  for  Howe 
who  read  it  says : 

"This  is  a  Romance,  pnrportir  g  to  have  been  trans- 
lated from  the  Lat  n,  found  on  24  rolls  of  parchment  in  a 
Cave  on  the  batiks  of  Conneaut  Creek,  but  written  in  modern 


style,  and  giving  a  fabulous  account  of  a  ship's  crew 
being  driven  upon  the  American  coast  while  proceeding 
from  Rome  to  Britain  a  short  lime  previous  to  the 
Christian  era,  this  country  then  being  inhabited  by  the 
Indians." 

"Found  in  a  cave."  This  is  the  very 
manuscript  remember,  that  they  have 
claimed  all  the  time  that  Rpaulding  wrote, 
traced  right  into  Mr.  Howe's  hands — the 
one  that  was  "found  in  a  cave,"  so  said. 
It  proves  itself  to  be  the  Manuscript  Found, 
the  very  one  they  got,  and  the  very  one 
they  made  way  with,  as  I  will  show  you, 
lest  it  should  spoil  their  little  game. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is  very  clear  ;— 
Hulburt  and  Howe  in  their  madness  had 
before  this,  skulked  down  to  Conneaut,  and 
over  into  Pennsylvania  with  statements  for 
a  few  of  these  ready  witnesses  who  \\  ere 
embittered  against  the  Saints,  (for  a  large 
number  of  people  had  accepted  the  faith 
about  Conneaut,  Mantua  and  other  places, 
and  thus  made  the  sects  rage),  got  the 
parties  to  sign  their  stuff  which  they  had 
garbled  from  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
afterwards  when  they  got  the  Spuulding 
manuscript  they  went  back  to  see  what  the 
trouble  was, — it  did  not  read  right.  As 
might  have  been  supposed  the  witnesses 
were  caught;  they  could  not  deny  that  it 
was  Spaulding's  manuscript,  too  clear  a 
case  for  that ;  Hulburt  had  been  and  got 
it  right  from  the  Mrs.  Solomon  ( Spauldiug) 
Davidson  herself:  What  do  they  do?  In- 
vent another  lie  to  get  out  of  the  first,  by 
saying:  "Spaulding  told  them  that  he  had 
altered  his  first  plan  of  writing  by  going 
farther  back  with  dates,  and  writing  in  the 
old  scripture  style  in  order  that  it  might 
appear  more  ancient."  Did  you  ever  !  I 
Right  out  of  the  book  that  Brad  en  fats  on  ! ! ! 
Spaulding  is  made  to  go  to  each  one  of  these 
witnesses,  or  they  come  to  him,  that  he  may 
tell  them  he  altered  his  first  plan  of  writing 
and  he  a  stranger  to  them  as  it  were,  for  all 
the  time  he  was  in  that  part  of  the  country 
was  but  two  years.  Well,  had  they  known 
his  first  style?  If  so,  why  did  they  not 
state  something  about  it  before  they  were 
caught?  And  how  came  it  that  they  never 
struck  upon  this  modern  style  while  they 
read  the  Spaulding  manuscript  so  much, 
which  they  try  to  foist  upon  the  world?  A 
man  that  will  take  up  and  believe  this  con- 
tradictory and  abominable  stuff  gotten  up 
by  a  set  of  conspiring  fanatics  and  tools 
more  than  three  years  after  the  publi- 
cation, and  sale  of  a  work  they  are  trying  by 
this  very  means  to  break  down,  and  with 
that  work  right  in  their  hands  to  draw  their 
names  from  as  admitted  in  their  statements, 
see  Wright's,  Miller's,  Lake's,  etc.,  is 
doomed  to  hopelessly  fall  in  with  the  class 
of  people  the  apostle  speaks  cf,  as  living  in 
the  last  times  when  such  a  message  of  truth 
as  the  Book  of  Mormon  contains  should  be 
presented  to  the  people,  who  would  oppose 
the  work,  the  truth: — 

"With  all  deceivablenessof  n^rlghteonones*  In  them 
that  perUh  :  because  they  received  ii"t  the  love  of  the 
truth  that  they  might  hi-  »av*-d.  Ai'<1  lor  this  cause 
God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion  thnt  tln-y  should 
believe  a  Hi-:  Tha-  iht-y  all  might  be  dimmed  who  be- 
lieved u»t  the  truth  but*  had  pleasure  in  unrighteous- 
ness." 2  Tbe^.  2: 10.  11. 12 


TILE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Men  must  examine  a  message  from  the 
true  standpoint,  God's  standard  :  "He  that 
ahideth  hi  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son."  Don't 
break  God's  law  by  speaking  mean  and 
slanderous  things  against  those  who  dif- 
fer from  you  in  religion  ;  there  is  neither 
sense  nor  argument  in  it.  "Speak  evil  of 
no  one."  "Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  unto  you.  do  ye  even  so  to  them;" 
and  know  assuredly,  that,  "whosoever 
transgresseth  [this  law]  and  abideth  notin 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath  not  God." 
£o  says  the  apostle  John,  and  so  say  I!  The 
Book  of  Mormon  is  presented  to  the  world 
and  claims  to  be  the  truth;  it  is  presented  to 
the  people  as  such  and  demands  a  fair  inves- 
tigation. As  in  every  age  of  the  world  when 
God  has  sent  a  message,  Satan  can't  stand 
to  see  the  word,  the  truth,  take  root  in  the 
heart ;  so  he  begins  on  stories,  and  char- 
acter, manufacturing  and  multiplying 
scheme  after  scheme,  falsehood  after  false- 
hood, until  in  this  instance  the  Spaulding 
"Romance."  came  along,  not  even  claiming 
to  be  a  thing  of  truth,  but  a  speculative 
lie, — theory;  and  the  people  who  are  too 
self-righteous  and  fanatical  to  believe  the 
truth,  at  once  drink  in  the  theory  of  the 
*'Jlomance." 

The  evidence  from  their  own  witnesses 
is  complete  in  showing  one  thing,  that  is, 
that  Spaulding  never  wrote  an  article  of 
any  kind  that  would  in  size,  character, 
style,  sense,  taste,  sentiment,  or  in  any 
manner  compare  with  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
But  how  about  "old  come  to  pass,"  says 
one.  Like  the  pretended  remembrance  of 
the  names  Lelii  and  Nephi,  the  false  sto- 
ry of  it  was  put  into  these  witnesses' 
mouths  and  they  thought  it  a  smart  thing 
to  say;  that  is  evident  to  a  man  who  will 
think.  Why  should  they  so  persistently 
call  Spaulding  "old  come. to  pass?"  Turn 
to  the  Bible,  In  almost  every  part  it 
abounds  with  the  expression.  In  some 
parts  of  St.  Luke's  gospel  it  is  as  frequent 
as  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  How  could  it 
receive  the  title  of  "old  come  to  pass," 
from  singularity,  when  the  expression  was 
already  a  familiar  one?  Such  a  statement 
is  only  equaled  by  the  brazenly  one  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Henry  Lake  of  the  La- 
ban  account.  "I  pointed  out  to  him  what 
I  considered  an  inconsistency,  which  he 
promised  to  correct ;  but  by  referring  to 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  I  find  to  my  sur- 
prise that  it  stands  therejust  as  read  to  me 
then."  Did  you  ever  hear  the  like  my 
friends?  YVV.O™  is  the  inconsistency  this 
•wise  man  pointed  out,  who  although  he  had 
not  seeu  ^r  heaid  anything  in  the  Spauld- 
ing Romance  in  twenty  years,  pretends  it 
twenty  minutes  reading  to  detect  it  by 
the  same  passages  which  Mr  Spaulding 
had  read  to  him  ;  only  think,  just  read  tr 
him,  more  than  23  years  befoie.  Takean- 
•other  of  Braden's  witnesses,  John  N  Mil  lei, 
the  fellow  who  worked  for  Lake,  anothei  or 
their  holy  crowd.  Twenty-two  years  pass- 
ed away  with  no  word  from  the  inaim- 
script,  and  then  ho  remembers  the  namop 


Nephi,  Lehi,  Moroni,  Zarahemla,  (the  en- 
tire book  they  have  here ;  the  first  part, 
middle,  and  last  part  where  the  name  Mo- 
roni is  found)  and  he  has  the  history  so  well 
that  Braden  says,  "the  average  "Mormon 
preacher,"  and  I  suppose  he  refers  to  me 
by  this,  "could  not  to-day  give  it  better." 
No,  sir !  But  this  smart  John  Miller 
can  give  it  from  having  read  it  in  the  old 
manuscript  twenty  years  before.  And 
Braden  drinks  it  down  !  What  a  wonder- 
ful Miller  this  was!  Can't  you  give  us  a 
further  clue  to  his  life  and  services  to  his 
country?  But  stop,  my  friends  !  He  fur- 
ther testifies.  .  Let  me  read: — "He  (Spauld- 
ing)  said  that  he  designed  it  as  a  historical 
novel,  and  that  in  after  years  it  would  be 
believed  by  many  people  as  much  as  the  his- 
tory of  England."  There!  Can  you  beat 
that  ?  And  yet  there  is  to  be  no  more 
prophets  !  This  is  Braden's  prophet.  I 
might  thus  lake  up  and  show  the  duplicity, 
cheek,  falsehood  and  spuriousness  of  every 
one  of  these,  said  to  be  statements,  but  I 
shall  not  so  dispose  of  my  time.  They  are 
all  effectually,  fully  and  completely  set  out 
and  accounted  for  beyond  a  doubt  by  any 
man  who  wants  the  truth  in  another  man- 
ner, and  which  I  shall  soon  present  you.  I 
am  asked  to  answer  the  question,  How  will 
you  dispose  of  them  ?  "Attack  their  char- 
acter ?"  What!  Don't  he  yet  know  me 
well  enough  to  know,  that  I  will  not  make 
of  myself  a  bird  of  carrion  to  pass  over  all 
proper  and  respectable  waj's  of  testing  a 
matter,  to  gather  from  the  sepulchre  of  the 
dead  and  rotten  ?  I  too  highly  respect  the 
Bible  and  the  Christian  religion,  as  well  as 
myself,  for  this.  If  character  is  to  be  the 
test  and  that  proven  by  one's  enemies,  our 
Bible  is  not  worth  a  straw  ;  the  entire  list 
of  writers  will  go  down  in  the  mire.  And 
should  we  test  the  issue  of  Bible  writers  on 
character  by  the  admissions  of  friends,  one 
half  of  our  inspired  men  of  the  Bible  would 
go  down.  No  sir;  I  have  from  the  first  tak- 
en such  grounds,  that  I  could  maintain  my 
faith  clear  through,  in  the  Bible  as  well  as 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  Consistency  is  a  jew- 
el to  be  admired.  Who  is  so  blind  as  to  not 
see  that  if  character  is  to  be  the  test,  that 
is  to  try  the  faith  of  the  Saints,  and  that 
character  proven  by  their  enemies,  the 
same  rule  must  be  followed  in  trying  others 
also.  The  position  is  more  desperate  than 
was  entertained  by  ancient  heathens. 
"The  good  that  men  do"  says  Mark  Antho- 
ny over  the  dead  body  of  Cresar,  "  lives 
alter  them,  the  evil  is  oft  interred  with 
their  bones  ;  so  let  it  be  with  Caesar." 

But  Braden  says,  let  us  find  some  evil  and 
perpetuate  that.  Character  !  What  would 
he  accept  as  good  under  his  rule?  Nobody 
ever  lived  of  prominence  in  God's  work 
who  has  not  been  slandered  and  berated. 
Doubtless  many  things,  too,  were  true 
against  the  early  Christians;  they  were  true 
in  part;  so  admitted  in  the  Bible.  But  I 
am  not  a  teacher  of  the  doctrine  of  infalli- 
bility hi  mankind.  I  believe  with  Jesus 
th:-J  .lone  are  good,  (except  God),  "no.  not 
one.'-'  Kow  hi»  long  abuse  and  misrepre- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


93 


sentation  of  the  characters  of  Mr.  Smith, 
Rigdon  and  others  last  evening  is  entirely 
foreign  to  the  question  under  discussion. 
Suppose  they  did  do  wrong  and  many  ab- 
surd and  foolish  things  !  what  weight  can 
that  have  in  determining  whether  the  part 
God  is  said  to  have  done  is  wrong?  Try 
this  matter  upon  its  merits.  I  do  not,  nor 
does  the  church  of  which  Mr.  Smith  was  un- 
der divine  Providence  the  founder,  claim 
for  these  men  perfection.  Many  of  the 
things  that  he  stated  about  these  men  and 
what  they  did  may  be  true;  but  as  to  the 
majority  1  am  satisfied  they  are  as  false  as 
hell  itself.  And  the  list  which  he  calls  his 
"  Mormon  Chronology,"  is  dotted  about  oc- 
casionally with  a,  fact,  that  he  may  thereby 
hide  the  deformity  of  a  hydra-head,  which 
he  ho,x*s  to  force  upon  the  people. 
But  his  chronology  as  a  whole  is  a  brazen 
piece  of  deception  and  of  false  statements, 
drawn  from  such  works  as  Howe,  Tucker, 
&G.  Suppose  I  take  up  Mitchell's  history 
of  the  United  States  and  read  the  infamous 
story  recorded  against  the  character  of  John 
Wesley  in  Georgia,  charging  a  crime  against 
that  religious  teacher  more  heinous  than 
any  ever  made  against  Smith,  how  would 
it  affect  the  Methodist  religion?  Suppose 
I  take  John  Calvin,  who  permitted  one  of 
his  own  adherents  to  be  burned  at  the 
stake  because  he  differed  \rith  him  on  relig- 
ion. Suppose  I  take  the  case  of  the  great 
reformer  Luther,  and  the  noble  Melancthon, 
and  show  that  they  consented  to  one  of 
their  members  entering  into  polygamy,  the 
great  Luther  actually  performing  the  mar- 
riage ceremony !  Shall  I  thrust  it  in  the 
face  of  the  Lutheran  Church  upon  a  trial  of 
their  faith?  I  know  this  was  done  by  cer- 
tain parties  this  last  Fall  upon  the  return 
of  the  400th  anniversary  of  the  "  Pious 
monk,"  but  how  despicably  mean  and  spite- 
ful it  seemed  to  thinking  men  and  women  ! 
The  rule  is  wrong.  We  must  get  upon  a 
higher  plane.  Who  wants  to  take  the 
office  of  "  the  accuser  of  the  brethren?" — 
Gathering  and  sowing  the  evils  spoken 
against  men.  Enter  the  mission  of  Satan 
in  tne  world  !  No,  sir;  not  me.  Don't  need 
to  ask  me,  if  I  will  try  to  hunt  up  your  wit- 
nesses' character,  unless  I  had  those  same 
witnesses  where  they  could  face  the  ones 
they  are  accusing,  and  they  in  turn  could 
face  their  accusers.  This  is  demanded  in 
decency.  Why!  do  you  suppose  if  I  was 
debating  with  an  infidel  I  would  rake  up 
the  past  life  of  Col.  Ingersoll?  Is  that  what 
you  call  impeaching  character?  To  go  and 
rake  up  all  you  can  find  about  a  man  and 
peddle  it — send  it  forth— publish  it.  That 
is  the  way  they  slander  men,  but  not  the 
way  they  impeach  them.  Suppose  an  infi- 
del should  attack  the  character  of  the  wri- 
ters in  the  Bible  in  the  same  way,  and  they 
often  do,  would  I  then  resort'  to  such  a 
course?  No,  sir.  Such  a  contest  would  be 
decided  upon  the  ground  of  who  could  get 
hold  of  and  tell  the  biggest  falsehood,  and 
I  would  engage  in  no  such  littleness.  But 
t  have  already  devoted  more  time  to  this 
than  it  deserved.  It  has  been  because  I 


did  not  know  but  possibly  some  one  present 
might  think  there  was  a  little  argument  in 
such  a  tirade  as  we  heard  from  the  nega- 
tive last  night,  and  for  that  reason  only,  I 
have  noticed  it.  As  for  myself  I  could  lis- 
ten for  weeks  at  such  abuse  and  villifica- 
tion  if  necessary  with  simply  a  sense  of 
pity  and  shame  for  the  one  who  spins  it. 
But  I  shall  now  finish  my  review  of  the 
"Spaulding  Romance,"  and  every  one  of 
his  witnesses'  testimony,  and  then  each 
evening  I  shall  have  new  matters  of  evi- 
dence on  the  question  under  discussion,  and 
many  that  have  never  been  presented  to 
any  audience.  Here  I  might  ask  the  ques- 
tion, Do  you  still  want  proof  that  Spauld- 
ing never  wrote  a  manuscript  like  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  in  any  sense,  or  feature?  The 
total  basis  for  all  of  their  huge  stories  and 
false  statements  about  "Spaulding's  manu- 
script," was  this  one  thing: — Spaulding, 
who  came  to  New  Salem,  now  Conneaut, 
Ohio,  and  remained  for  about  two  years, 
first  representing  himself  as  a  preacher, 
then  a  dealer  in  real  estate,  and  thirdly  un- 
dertook to  erect  a  "forge,"  (in  all  of  which 
he  failed, -and  suddenly  left,  leaving  his 
debts  unpaid,  so  stated  by  their  own  wit- 
nesses), at  one  time  during  his  stay  at  New 
Salem,  told  some  parties  that  he  had  found 
an  old  manuscript  in  a  cave  on  Conneaut 
creek,  which  gave  an  account  of  a  long  lost 
shipwrecked  crew  on  the  American  coast, 
and  it  would  be  greatly  interesting  when 
published,  and  he  would  be  able  to  make  a 
raise  of  enough  money  to  pay  all  his  debts 
and  be  independent.  He  wanted  a  little 
more  money  out  of  them  so  he  could  go  to 
Pittsburg  and  have  it  published.  He  roped 
in  a  few  and  leflt.  but  instead  of  getting  up 
the  startling  publication,  he  stayed  but  a 
short  time  in  Pitfcsburg  and  went  to  Wash- 
ington county  Pennsylvania,  where  he 
died  in  1816.  He  never,  however,  reported 
to  his  creditors  and  they  were  left  in  the 
suds,  waiting  for  a  check  from  the  broken- 
down  clergyman.  Twenty-one  years  pasa 
away,  and  no  tidings.  In  the  meantime 
the  Book  of  Mormon  is  published  and  is 
making  a  great  excitement  in  the  world, 
and  these  duped  creditors  of  Spaulding's 
begin  to  think  of  the  startling  shipwreck 
tale,  of  which  Spaulding  had  told  them  he 
would  make  his  fortune  ;  and  they  got  hold 
of  a  copy  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the 
base  Hiilburt,  who  had  been  cut  off  from 
the  Church  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints;  got 
out  their  statements  and  sent  Hulburt  after 
the  Spaulding  manuscript.  This  they  found 
carefully  laid  away  in  the  trunk  of  Spauld- 
ing's widow,  and  it  is  brought  back  by  them 
and  put  into  the  hands  of  Editor  Howe,  of 
Painesville,  Ohio,  who  reads  it  and  finds 
no  resemblance  whatever  to  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  Howe  says,  page  2$8  of  his  book 
entitled  "Mormonism  Unveiled:"  "This  is 
a  romance,  purporting  to  have  been  trans- 
lated from  the  Latin,  found  on  twenty-four 
rolls  of  parchment,  in  a  cave,  on  the  hanks 
of  Conneaut  creek,  but  written  in  modern 
style,  and  giving  a  fabulous  account,  of  a 
ship's  being  driven  upon  the  American 


94 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


coast  while  proceeding  from  Rome  to  Brit- 
ain, a  short  time  previous  to  the  Christian 
era,  this  country  then  being  inhabited  by 
the  Indians." 

Here  is  the  Spaulding  tale  in  a  nutshell ! 
The  whole  thing  entirely  different  from 
the  Book  of  Mormon ;  the  style,  dates, 
names,  peoples,  and  all.  The  whole  thing 
as  foreign  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  heaven 
to  hades,  but  it  is  the  little  nit  from  which 
the  enemies  of  Mr.  Smith  hatched  this 
terrible  "  Spaulding  Story." 

This  i?  his  alibi.  How  I  ask  you,  does 
his  evidence  stand  upon  the  first  point  ?  Did 
Solomon  Spaulding  ever  write  a  manuscript 
like  the  manuscript  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon in  any  sense  ?  I  say  the  evidence  from 
his  own  witnesses  is  against  him  and  ask 
him  to  now  meet  the  issue  he  has  made. 

But  he  does  not  only  have  to  show  this, 
but  to  show  also  : 

2nd.  That  Rigdon  and  Smith  in  some 
way  stole  it  and  that  Smith  used  it. 

3d.  That  Rigdon  knew  of  Smith  and  the 
Book  of  Mormon  before  the  book  was  pub- 
lished in  1830,  and  was  connected  with  the 
two  in  some  way. 

4th.  That  Parley  P.  Pratt  did  not  bring  a 
a  copy  of  this  book  and  present  it  to  Rig- 
don while  Rigdon  was  a  Disciple  Preacher, 
and  then  and  there,  in  1830,  Rigdon  first 
knew  the  contents  of  said  book. 

In  beginning  upon  the  second  prop- 
osition, I  am  reminded  of  the  story  that 
is  told  of  the  absent  juror.  He  had  been 
subpoenaed  to  attend  a  session  of  court;  but 
when  the  day  arrived  and  court  was  called, 
he  was  not  there  ;  and  the  judge  abruptly 
demanded  to  know  the  reason.  The  juror's 
friend  arose  and  said  there  were  several 
reasons.  And  proceeded  to  give  them. 
The  first  is,  he  said,  that  the  man  is  dead. 
There!  that  is  enough,  said  the  judge,  you 
need  not  give  any  more. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  if  I  have  shown 
you  clearly  that  Spaulding  never  wrote 
such  a  manuscript  as  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
or  one  that  had  any  resemblance  to  it,  from 
their  own  witnesses,  that  ought  to  be 
enough  on  this  ;  but  lest  some  one  may  yet 
have  a  doubt  I  will  produce  some  further 
evidence.  First  a  letter  from  Sidney  Rig- 
don to  the  editors  of  the  Boston  Journal. 
"COMMERCE,  May  27th,  1839. 
ME--SRS.  BAKTLET  AND  SUUVAN  : — 

T.iere  was  no  man  by  the  name  ef  Patterson,  during 
my  residence  in  Pittsburg,  who  had  a  printing  office: 
what  might  have  been  before  I  lived  there  I  know  not. 
Mr.  Rol  ert  Patterson,  I  WHS  told,  had  owned  a  printing 
office  before  I  lived  in  that  city,  but  had  been  unfor- 
tunate in  business  and  failed  before  my  residence 
there.  This  Mr.  Patterson,  who  was  a  Presbyterian 
Preacher,  I  had  a  very  slight  acquaintance  with 
during  my  residence  In  Fittsburg;  he  was  then  acting 
under  an  agency  in  the  book  and  stationery  business 
and  was  the  owner  of  no  property  of  anv  kind,  print- 
ing office  or  anything  else,  during  the  time  I  resided 
in  the  city.  If  I  were  to  say  that  I  ever  heard  of  the 
Rev.  Solomon  Spanlding  and  his  wife,  until  Dr.  H. 
Hulburt  wrote  his  lie  about  me,  I  should  be  a  liar  like 
unto  themselves." 

Rigdon  is  emphatic,  when  he  talks,  you 
know,  oecause  many  of  you  used  to  hear 
him  talk. 


"  Why  was  not  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Patterson  ob- 
tained to  give  force  to  the  shameful  tale  of  lies  ?  The 
only  reason  is,  that  he  was  not  a  fit  tool  for  them  to 
work  with;  he  would  not  lie  for  them;  for  if  he  were 
called  on,  he  would  testify  to  what  I  have  said.  This 
Hulburt  once  belonged  to  the  Methodist  Church,  but 
was  excluded  for  immoralities.  He  afterwards  im- 
posed himself  upon  the  church  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
and  was  excluded  for  uiing  abscene  language  to  a 
young  lady,  a  member  of  said  church,  who  resented 
his  Insult  with  Indignation,  which  became  both  her 
character  and  profession.  After  his  exclusion  he  swore 
—for  he  was  vilely  profane— that  he  would  have  re- 
venge, and  commenced  his  work.  He  soon  found 
assistance;  a  pious  old  deacon  of  the  Campbellito 
church,  by  the  name  of  Onis  Clapp,  and  his  two  sons, 
Thomas  W.  Clapp,  and  Matthew  8.  Clapp,  both  ^-imp. 
bellite  preachers,  abetted  and  assisted  by  her 
Campbeliite  preacher,  by  the  name  of  Adamson  re  itly. 
Hulbart  went  to  work  catering  lies  for  the  company. 
Before  he  got  through,  his  conduct  became  so  scandal- 
ous that  the  company  utterly  refused  to  let  his  <tme 
go  out  with  the  lies  he  had  collected,  and  he  and  his 
associates  had  made,  and  thev  substituted  the  name  of 
E.  D.  Howe.  The  change,  however,  was  not  much 
better." 

Then  he  refers  in  terms  to  Mrs.  Matilda 
Davidson,  but  it-is  not  material  and  I  have 
not  it  copied  in  here.  I  will  read  it  if  neces- 
sary. 

"  A  man  of  character  would  never  have  put  his  name 
to  a  work  which  Hulburt  wag  concerned  In.  The  tale 
in  your  paper  is  one  hatched  up  by  this  gang  from 
the  time  of  their  expulsion." 

Respectfully,  8.  RIGDON." 

From  the  strong  language  of  this  letter 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  Mr.  Rigdon  had  been 
maligned  by  the  Campbellites,  the  people 
with -whom  he  had  formerly  been  connect- 
ed— to  such  an  extent  that  it  was  almost 
impossible  to  bear  it  any  longer ;  and  the 
reason  of  this  was  simply  because  he  saw 
fit  in  the  honesty  of  his  heart,  to  step  out 
and  embrace  what  he  believed  to  ba  a  bet- 
ter and  higher  religion  than  was  to  be  had 
by  remaining  with  his  Campbellite  breth- 
ren. Hence  it  is,  that  when  he  speaks,  it 
is  with  that  sternness  and  force,  that  was 
a  terror  to  his  maligners. 

Heretofore  they  have  generally  told  about 
Rigdon  working  for  Patterson,  but  Braden 
has  seen  this  go  to  the  wall  once,  as  he  did 
also  his  "woman  preacher  story,"  at  Wil- 
ber,  Neb.,  so  he  has  deftly  yclept  it  this 
time  ;  that  is  better  than  no  fairness ;  when 
you  are  driven  clear  to  the  wall  drop  it ; 
and  if  he  was  not  so  eager  to  grab  at  some- 
thing else  he  would  improve  in  the  world 
much  better. 

This  letter  of  Rigdon's  effectually  shows 
that  he  never  worked  in  a  printing  office  in 
Pittsburg;  that  Patterson  had  uosuch  office 
when  he  was  there  to  his  knowledge,  and 
was  not  engaged  in  the  business  of  print- 
ing; and,  referring  to  Mr.  Patterson,  who 
was  at  the  time  a  Presbyterian  preacher, 
as  a  man  who  would  corrobrate  this  state- 
ment. Afterwards  Patterson  does  corrob- 
orate it.  Rigdon  says,  the  first  he  ever 
knew  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  in  the 
year  1830,  when  a  copy  was  handed  him  by 
a  minister  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints  by  the 
name  of  P.  P.  Pratt. 

(Time  called.) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


95 


MR.  BRADEN'S    NINTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — Mr.  Kelley  told  you  last 
night  that  Mrs.  Smith,  the  mother  of  Joe 
Smith,  and  some  other  mem  hers  of  the  family 
brought  letters  from  a  Presbyterian  church 
In  Vermont  and  joined  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  Manchester,  New  York.  In  the 
life  of  Joseph  Smith  by  his  mother  she  says 
she  allowed  herself  to  be  baptized  in  Ver- 
mont, *  ut  refused  to  join  any  church  ;  that 
she  rejoiced  when  the  Mormon  church  was 
started,  that  she  then  found  a  church  that 
shecould  join.  Nota  Smith  ever  belonged  to 
a  church  in  Palmyra.  Not  a  Smith  ever 
belonged  to  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
Manchester,  for  there  was  no  Presbyterian 
church  in  Manchester  until  31  years  after 
the  Smiths  left  Manchester ;  not  one  of 
the  Smith  family  ever  belonged  to  any 
church  until  Mormonism  was  started,  for 
although  very  superstitious,  they  were 
noted  for  their  neglect  and  disregard 
of  the  church  and  all  things  connected 
with  religion.  That  statement  of  my 
opponent  is  one  of  those  statements  some- 
times said  to  be  made  out  of  whole  cloth. 
My  opponent  forgets  that  his  talk  here  will 
be  stereotyped  into  a  book  and  will  stand 
for  generations  when  he  makes  such  reckless 
misstatements  as  he  did  last  night. 

The  reader  will  read  in  my  argument  that 
I  introduced  Priest's  "  Wonders  "  to  show 
that  the  idea  that  the  aborigines  of  America 
were  Israelites  was  hundreds  of  years  oldc-r 
than  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  a  widely 
believed  theory,  and  that  I  said  not  a  word 
on  "mounds "or  "antiquities"  in  connec- 
tion with  that  book.  He  will  then  read 
KelJey's  statement  that  I  introduced  it  to 
off-set  his  argument  on  antiquities  and  ask 
himself.  "  What  does  the  fellow  mean  by 
such  reckless  assertions?" 

He  will  read  my  statement  that  if  the 
Nephites  were  circumcised  Israelites  they 
belonged  to  the  same  fold  as  those  Jesus 
was  addressing  and  could  not  be  the  other 
sheep  not  of  that  fold  ;  or  if  they  had  aban- 
doned circumcision  they  were  no  longer 
Israelites  and  the  prophecies  Kelley  quoted 
could  not  apply  to  them,  and  then  read  with 
amazement  that  I  said  or  hinted  that  they 
were  not  circumcised.  I  never  said  so  for 
there  n^ver  were  any  Nephites  to  be  circum- 
cised. The  reader  will  read  Kelley's  asser- 
tion thi\t  I  introduced  no  witnesses,  read 
no  testimony,  and  then  turn  back  and  see 
in  different  type  from  my  speeches  the 
testimony  of  29  witnesses — see  that  I  read 
the  testimony  of  some  witnesses  two  or  more 
times:  that  I  had  read  more  of  Mrs.  David- 
eon's  testimony  than  he  did :  longer  por- 
tions from  several  witnesses  than  h«  did 
from  any  that  he  introduced ;  I  introduced 
nnd  read  testimony  just  as  he  did,  and 
exclaim:  "What  can  the  fellow  mean  by  such 
falsehoods?"  He  will  read  Kelley 's  assertion 


that  I  said  that  Rigdon  worked  in  Patter- 
son's printing  office  at  Pittsburg  and  turn 
back  and  read  my  statement  that  he  did 
not  work  there  but  was  in  Pittsburg  learning 
the  tanners'  trade  and  was  in  Patterson's 
office  as  a  crony  of  Lambdin,  one  of  the 
printers,  and  IP  that  way  learned  of  the 
existence  of  the  Spaulding  manuscript, 
which  was  attracting  .much  notice  in  the 
office,  and  became  much  interested  in  it,  and 
stole  it,  as  is  proved  by  witnesses,  and 
exclaim:  "Why,  what 'does  that  fellow 
by  such  reckless  falsehoods?" 

He  will  read  my  clear  proof  that  Spauld- 
ing wrote  several  manuscripts  of  his  Manu- 
script Found  and  then  read  with  amazement 
Kelley's  reckless  assertion  that  he  wrote 
but  one.  The  manuscript  described  by 
Mrs.  Spaulding  was  his  first  brief  draft.  It 
was  this  that  John  Spaulding  read  through; 
it  was  this  that  Mrs.  McKinstrey  read. 
The  reader  will  read  with  amazement  the 
objection  that  Spaulding's  Manuscript 
Found  represented  the  aborigines  of  Amer- 
ica as  idolaters,  and  the  Book  of  Mormon 
represents  them  to  be  worshippers  of  the 
one  God  :  when  he  remembers  that  I  showed 
that  Rigdon  changed  the  manuscript  when 
remodeling  it  to  use  as  a  pretended  reve- 
lation. He  will  read  with  amazement 
Kelley's  assertion  that  Hulburt  obtained 
from  Mrs.  Davidson  the  manuscript  of  the 
Manuscript  Found  when  she  says  she  only 
gave  him  an  order  to  examine  a  trunk  hun- 
dreds of  miles  away  in  Hartwick,  N.  Y  ,  to 
see  if  it  was  in  the  trunk.  The  reader  will 
read  with  amazement  Kelley's  fabrication 
that  Howe  said  that  he  received  from  Hurl- 
but  a  manuscript  of  the  Manuscript  Found. 
Howe  distinctly  and  pointedly  declares  that 
he  did  not  receive  a  manuscript  of  the 
Manuscript  Found  but  the  beginning  pages 
of  an  entirely  different  manuscript — the 
manuscript  of  the  first  romance  written  by 
Spaulding,  written  before  he  began  the 
Manuscript  Found.  In  that  first  romance 
Spaulding  assumed  that  the  Indians  round 
the  Great  Lakes  were  descendants  of  ship- 
wrecked Romans.  He  abandoned  this 
tlieory  and  began  the  Manuscript  Found, 
in  which  he  assumed  the  aborigines  of 
America  and  the  ancestors  of  all  Indians 
were  Israelites.  Howe  does  not  say  that 
he  received  the  Manuscript  Found  and  that 
the  Manuscript  Found  was  not  what  he  ex- 
pected it  to  be  as  Kelly  falsely  asserts  he 
says.  He  says  that  he  did  not  receive  the 
Manuscript  Kound  but  the  manuscript  of  an 
earlier  and  entirely  different  story  and  the 
manuscript  that  he  received  was  not  what  he 
expected,  for  it  was  not  the  manuscript  of 
the  Manuscript  Found,  which  was  what  he 
expected  to  rereive.  Why  did  not  he  re- 
ceive the  manuscript  of  the  Manuscript 
Found  ?  "  We  will  a  tale  unfold"  thut  will 
explain  that.  In  a  letter  written  to  J.  E. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


in  1842,  Mrs.  Davidson  says  that 
shortly  after  Hurlbut  left  Munson  with 
the  order  from  her  to  get  the  manuscript 
of  the  Manuscript  Found  from  the  trunk  at 
Mr.  Clark's  at  Hartwicke,  N.  Y.,  she  receiv- 
ed a  letter  from  Hurlbut,  in  which  he  told 
her  th*t  he  had  obtained  from  the  trunk 
what  he  had  come  for,  the  manuscript  of 
the  Manuscript  Found,  and  that  when  he 
had  taken  it  to  the  parties  that  sent  him, 
and  it  had  been  used  for  the  purpose  for 
which  they  wanted  it,  that  is  published  to 
expose  the  plagiarism  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon from  it,  he  would  return  it  to  her. 

Hurlbut  came  to  the  people  at  Conneaut 
and  Howe,  and  lied,  and  said  that  the  only 
manuscript  he  found  was  the  part  of  the 
manuscript  we  have  described  above.  Up 
to  this  time  he  had  been  very  active  in  get- 
ting up  the  book  Howe  published  ;  he  had 
spent  months  and  much  money  in  collect- 
ing the  evidence  used  in  it:  now  he  sud- 
denly abandons  all.  takes  no  further  part 
or  interest  in  it  and  goes  to  Western  Ohio 
and  buys  a  farm  ;  when,  before  he  had  not 
money  enough  to  pay  his  traveling  ex- 
penses. Mrs.  Davidson,  on  reading  Howe's 
book  and  Hurlbut's  statement  as  given  in 
it  was  amazed  and  wrote  to  him  reminding 
him  of  what  he  had  written  to  her  and  that 
the  Clark's  had  written  that  he  had  got  the 
manuscript  of  the  Manuscript  Found.  She 
demanded  that  he  return  the  manuscript  to 
her.  Her  daughter  also  wrote  repeatedly. 
The  letters  were  sent  to  persons  who  wrote 
that  they  harded  them  to  Hurlbut.  He 
never  answered  one  of  them.  The  Rev.  J.  A. 
Clark  published  in  the  "  Episcopal  Record- 
er" that  the  Mormons  in  Missouri  said  they 
paid  Howe  $400.00  for  the  manuscript.  The 
Rev.  Storrs  in  a  letter  published  in 
"  Gleanings  by  the  Way"  states  that  Hurl- 
but  boasted  that  he  made  $400.00  out  of  the 
manuscript.  He  sold  it  to  the  Mormons  in 
Kirtland.  These  charges  Hurlbut  never 
met,  but  laid  under  them  till  his  death. 
This  answers  the  demand  why  the  Spauld- 
ings  did  not  publish  the  manuscript  of  the 
Manuscript  Found  and  expose  the  fraud. 
That  is  the  very  thing  they  tried  to  do,  but 
the  agent  by  whom  they  sent  the  manu- 
script to  Howe,  the  publisher,  betrayed 
them  and  sold  it  to  the  Mormons.  Hurl- 
but's false  and  contradictory  statements 
and  absurd  stories  to  Mr.  Patterson  in  1880 
proved  that  he  was  guilty  of  what  he  was 
charged  with  and  was  trying- to  lie  out  of  it. 
The  reader  will  read  with  amazement  if  not 
too  much  disgusted  at  its  stillness  the  at- 
tacks on  Hurl but's  character  by  Kelley  and 
ask  what  has  the  character  of  the  scribe 
who  collected  the  evidence  to  do  with  the 
truthfulness  of  the  statements  of  the  wit- 
nesses? He  will  read  in  the  same  waj  the 
statements  over  which  Kelley  tso  idiotically 
makes  such  great  eyes  and  mouths  that 
Howe  said  that  personally  he  knew  nothing 
about  the  facts  stated  hv  the  witnesses 
whose  testimony  he  published  and  ask 
what  odds  does  it  make  if  the  lawyer  does 
not  know  personally  the  facts  his  witnesses 
iUvte?  Kelley  asks  why  is  not  ZebuJon 


Randolph  here?  Kelley  has  quoted  Howe. 
Mrs.  McKinstrey  and  several  others  why 
are  not  they  here  ?  Why  does  he  not  have 
them  here  instead  of  telling  us  what  he 
says  they  told  him  and  by  the  way  Mr. 
Howe  contradicts  flatly  Mr.  Kelley's  state- 
ment in  his  case.  His  silly  objection  puts 
out  of  court  all  his  own  witnesses.  Has  not 
Kelley  sense  enough  to  see  that  in  such  ob- 
jections he  puts  a  club  in  my  hands  with 
which  I  can  beat  out  his  own  brains  if  he 
has  any  ?  He  asks  what  is  the  connection 
between  Mrs.  Dunlap's  statement  that  Rig- 
don  spent  so  much  time  over  a  certain  man- 
uscript, and  Rigdon's  authorship  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon?  The  intelligent  reader 
will  see  the  connection  when  he  reads  evi- 
dence that  Rigdon  stole  the  Spaulding 
manuscript :  that  he  had  it  in  his  possession 
before  this  time  and  that  he  also  stated  to  two 
witnesses  that  he  also  obtained  the  Spauld- 
ing manuscript  frera  the  printing  office  and 
told  one  of  them  that  he  gave  it  to  Smith  to 
publish  as  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Placed  be- 
tween such  evidence  Mrs.  Dunlap's  evi- 
dence is  another  li-nk  in  a  chain  Mormons 
cannot  break.  He  aska  what  relevance  in 
the  statement  of  Zebulon  Rudolph  and  old 
citizens  of  Mentor  that  Rigdon  was  absent 
from  home  for  weeks  at  a  time  aad  no  one 
knew  where  during  the  three  years  that 
preceded  the  appearance  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon? When  taken  in  connection  with  the 
testimony  that  he  was  seen  at  Smith's  dur- 
ing the  same  time  as  stated  by  Case,  Saund- 
ers,  Tucker,  McAuley  and  Mrs.  Eaton  the 
reader  will  see  the  force  of  the  evidence. 

Such,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  is  the  at- 
tack on  our  array  of  testimony;  reckless 
falsifying  of  evidence,  reckless  fabrications 
of  what  has  no  proof,  and  indeed  is  flatly 
contradicted  by  the  evidence  and  weak  pet- 
tyfogging.  I  confess  I  have  been  ama/ed 
at  the  weakness  of  the  reply.  Is  that  the 
best  that  the  chosen  representative  of  Mor- 
monism  with  all  its  inspiration,  spiritual 
gifts,  illumination  and  revelations,  can 
do? 

I  have  presented  the  evidence  of  29  wit- 
nesses. Has  he  attempted  to  prove  that 
they  did  not  testify  ?  No.  That  they  are 
wanting  in  truthfulness?  No.  Has  he 
attempted  to  rebut  their  evidence?  No. 
He  has  falsified  their  statements,  misrepre- 
sented them,  fabricated  rebutting  evidence, 
playing  false  witness  and  pettyfogger  at  the 
same  time.  Such  is  the  great  Mormon  Cham- 
pion's  attacks  on  the  Spaulding  story.  If 
my  opponent  would  present  one  quarter  of 
the  evidence  I  have  presented  to  prove  his 
right  to  an  estate  it  would  be  given  him. 

Kelley  denies  that  there  is  such  a  Greek 
word  as  "Mormon."  Donnegan  gives  tlu 
following  Mormon  (anglicized  Mormon)  UA 
female  spectre,  a  phantom."  Other  lexicons 
give  the  word  and  define  it  "a  hobgo1  'in,  a 
bugbear."  Spaulding  from  his  knowledge 
of  Greek  used  the  word  as  significant  of  the 
character  of  his  fabrication.  Smith  and 
Rigdon  weie  too  ignorant  to  know  the  irony 
there  was  in  the  word  and  published  to  the 
world  their  new  translation  as  the  "Book 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


97 


of  Mormon" — "Book  of  Phantom,  of  Hob- 
goblin, of  Bugbear,"  the  most  appropriate 
title  for  the  fraud  and  the  eviJ  work  it  has 
done  among  fools.  But  think  of  Israelites 
over  in  America  who  did  not  know  there 
were  such  beings  as  the  Greeks  in  existence, 
using  pure  Greek  names !  My  opponent 
betrays  his  ignorance  when  he  asserts  that 
the  Greek  word  is  "Mormou"  or  "Mor- 
moun."  He  evidently  mistook  "Nu,"  the 
Greek  N.  for  U.  which  corresponds  to  the 
Greek  Upsilon.  Mormon  must  belong  to  the 
Reformed  Egyptian  of  Joe  8mith  and  his 
disciple  Kelley.  Alma  is  a  pure  Latin 
word.  Nephi  is  a  Greek  word.  Israelites 
in  America  using  Greek  and  Latin  words! 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  MORMON. 

Having  given  the  history  of  the  origin  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  we  shall  now  analyze 
the  book  itself.  We  have  already  described 
what  the  work  purports  to  be.  It  was  given 
to  the  world  in  the  following  manner  : — Joe 
Smith  asserts  that  an  angel  revealed  to  him 
the  existence  and  location  of  certain  plates 
engraved  with  certain  characters ;  that  he 
obtained  these  plates  and  that  by  inspira- 
tion, the  miraculous  power  of  God,  he  trans- 
lated them.  These  plates  had  been  buried 
by  Moroni  about  1400  years  before  Smith 
obtained  them.  They  contained  an  abridg- 
ment that  Moroni  and  his  father  had  made 
by  inspiration  of  the  history  of  the  abori- 

fenes  of  Aiaerica.  This  abridgment  was 
ased  on  an  immense  library  of  plates  writ- 
ten by  inspired  men  during  the  period  of 
over  4,000  years,  beginning  with  Jared's 
brother,  who  was  contemporary  with  the 
building  of  the  Towel-  of  Babel.  Mormons 
defend  this  claim  in  three  ways :  first,  by 
an  appeal  to  the  external  evidences,  the  af- 
fidavits of  the  eleven  witnesses;  second, 
that  the  utterances  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
agree  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  and 
are  good;  third,  by  a  most  vindictive,  ma- 
licious, infidel  attack  on  the  Bible  when 
the  absurdities  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  are 
exposed.  The  first  line  of  proof  displays 
some  craft.  They  parade  the  eleven  wit- 
nesses. If  we  impeach  these  witnesses  aa 
we  can  and  shall  do,  they  can  raise  the  cry 
of  persecution  and  attempt  to  rouse  sympa- 
thy. We  shall  not  be  deterred  from  duty  by 
any  such  cry.  As  they  have  introduced  the 
witnesses  and  stoked  all  on  their  testimony, 
we  shall  impeach  them.  In  reply  to  the 
second  line  of  proof  we  shall  show  that  all 
that  is  good  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  felo- 
niously stolen  from  the  Bible,  and  is  good 
because  it  is  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  and 
not  because  it  was  given  by  inspiration  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  Because  a  counter- 
feit resembles  the  genuine  it  is  no  proof 
that  it  is  genuine,  but  that  it  imitates  the 
genuine  in  order  to  deceive,  and  because  a 
book  pretending  to  be  inspired  resembles 
one  that  is  inspired,  it  is  no  proof  that  the 
first  is  inspired,  but  that  the  counterfeit 
imitates  the  inspired  book  in  order  to  de- 
ceive. Counterfeits  imitate  every  feature 
of  the  genuine  if  they  can.  Hypocrites  and 
Imposters  imitate  every  feature  and  senti- 


ment of  the  good  and  true.  Rome  of  the 
most  infamous  hypocrites  have  imitated, 
copied  and  uttered,  the  best  sentiments  that 
have  ever  been  uttered.  The  discourses 
and  writings  of  the  most  infamous  charac- 
ters that  have  ever  lived  have  contained 
the  very  best  of  truth  and  goodness  and 
often  not  a  word  but  what  is  true  and  good. 
The  devil  can  transform  himself  into  an 
angel  of  light,  and  talk  as  much  truth  and 
goodness  as  an  angel  of  light.  Because  he 
talks  as  perfect  truth  and  goodness  as  an 
angel  of  light  does  not  prove  that  he  is  an 
angel  of  light.  If  the  Mormon  plea  that 
we  must  accept  a  man  as  a  good  man  be- 
cause he  talks  so,  be  true  ;  there  can  be  no 
means  of  detecting  hypocrites  and  an  im- 
poster,  for  does  not  he  talk  all  righ  t?  If  the 
devil  repeats  to  us  thedoctrinesofChristand 
the  truth  we  must  accept  him  as  perfectly 
good  and  declare  that  he  has  the  Father 
and  the  Bon  and  is  inspired,  if  he  asserts 
that  he  is.  This  claim,  the  pet  argument 
of  Mormonism,  is  the  most  ineffable  balder- 
dash that  I  have  ever  met. 

The  Mormons  reverse  the  line  of  argu- 
ment. They  absurdly  assert  that  the  claims, 
the  pretensions  of  a  book  should  determine 
the  character  of  the  book.  Common  sense 
declares  that  we  should  carefully  investi- 
gate the  character  of  the  book  to  deter- 
mine whether  these  claims  be  true.  They 
claim  that  we  should  accept  their  book  as 
divine  because  its  author  claims  to  be  a 
prophet,  and  eleven  men  assert  that  he  is 
inspired.  Common  sense  says  accept  a  man 
as  a  prophet  because  the  contents  of  his 
book  prove  him  to  be  a  prophet.  The  one 
sole  argument  of  the  Mormon  is  a  constant 
jabber  of  one  passage.  "He  that  hath  the 
Doctrine  of  Christ  hath  the  Father  and  the 
Son  ;'•'  that  is,  he  must  be  a  child  of  God  a 
good  man,  and  inspired,  if  he  claims  to  be 
inspired.  Imposter  Joe  presents  to  us  in 
his  book  the  Doctrine  of  the  Christ,  and 
although  we  show  that  every  word  that  is 
good  was  stolen  from  the  Bible,  we  must 
believe  that  he  has  the  Father  and  the  Son 
that  he  is  a  good  man  ;  that  he  is  inspired 
because  he  says  he  is,  and  that  the  Book 
of  Mormon  is  of  divine  origin  because  im- 
poster  Joe  says  so.  The  devil  presents  to 
us  a  book  that  contains  the  doctrine  of  the 
Christ  stolen  from  the  Bible.  According  to 
Mormon  logic,  because  he  has  the  doctrine 
of  the  Christ,  no  matter  how  obtained,  no 
matter  what  his  character  may  be,  no  mat- 
ter what  his  motive  may  be,  in  presenting 
it,  the  devil  has  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
is  a  child  of  God,  and  if  he  says  that  he  is 
inspiiad  we  must  believe  him  and  accept 
his  book  as  of  Divine  origin. 

When  we  remember  that  every  good  thing 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  stolen  from  the 
Bihle,  the  Absurdity  of  the  claim  that  be- 
cause the  truths  of  the  Bible  are  in  the  pos- 
session of  thece  thieves  therefore  they  are 
inspired  and  their  book  of  Divine  origin  can 
hardly  be  appreciated.  To  claim  that  the 
thieves  were  good  men  is  an  Insult  to  com- 
mon sense,  but  to  claim  that  they  were  in- 
spired of  God  in  thb  theft,  because  they 


98 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


stole  the  Divine  utterances  of  the  Bible 
and  mendaciously  presented  them  to  the 
world  as  their  own  inspired  utterances  is 
idiocy  that  is  almost  sublime  in  its  magni- 
tude! Priapus  Young  presents  us  the  un- 
varnished Mormon  argument  when  he  de- 
clares 

"  The  Doctrine  the  Prophet  J«stph  teaches  In  all  I 
c are  about.  Bring  anything  against  that  It  you  can. 
'  As  for  anything  else  1  don't  care  it  theProphet  Joseph 
'  acted  like  the  devil.  He  brought  forth  a  doctrine  that 
'  will  save  us  if  we  will  abide  by  it.  He  may  have  got 
'  drunk  every  day  of  his  life,  slept  with  his  neighbor's 
'  wife  cve-y  night,  ran  horses  and  gambled  every  day; 
'  J  care  nothing  about  that,  for  1  never  embrace  any 
'  man  in  my  faith.  The  doctrine  the  Prophet  Joseph 
'produced  will  tare  \ou  and  me,  and  the  whole 
'  world."  If  you  can  ^n*.  any  fault  with  his  doctrine, 
'find  it'" 

Kelley  is  not  as  frank  and  as  honest 
as  Priapus  Young,  but  that  is  what  he 
means  when  he  jabbers  "  He  that  hath  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Christ  hath  the  Father  and 
the  Son." 

We  will  admit  this  much.  If  the  doctrine 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  be  true  we  should 
acceptitas truth, becauseitis  truth.  Butthat 
does  not  prove  that  Joseph  Smith  was  even 
a  good  man,  for  the  Devil  can  litter  truth. 
It  does  not  prove  that  his  book  is  true  in  its 
historic  statements,  nor  that  it  is  what  it 
claims  to  be — a  history  of  the  aborigines  of 
America;  for  the  biggest  fraud  ever  concocted 
may  contain  good  doctrines,  stolen  from  the 
Bible  or  other  sources.  If  Joseph  Smith 
was  a  good  man,  his  assertion  that  he  was 
inspired,  even  if  his  doctrine  were  true, 
would  not  necessarily  be  true ;  for  many  a 
good  man  has  been  decieved  and  thought 
he  was  inspired  when  he  was  not  and  that 
his  talk  was  revelation  when  it  was  not. 
This  whole  line  of  argument  is  the  most 
absurd  and  idiotic  that  has  ever  been  pre- 
sented to  a  thinking  people.  There  are 
several  queries  to  be  settled.  Even  if  the 
moral  and  religious  ideas  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  be  true,  who  presents  it  to  us,  a 
good  being  or  an  evil  one?  Is  it  presented 
honestly  or  hypocritically?  Is  it  genuine  or 
counterfeit  that  has  stolen  the  features  of 
the  genuine  in  order  to  deceive.  If  it 
claims  inspiration,  is  the  one  claiming  in- 
spiration one  that  would  be  chosen  of  God 
as  a  medium  for  inspiration.  Is  he  honest 
or  is  he  hypocritical  ?  If  honest,  sincere 
and  good  was  he  mistaken  or  is  his  claim 
true?  Then  what  is  the  character  of  the  pro- 
posed revelation  ? 

The  third  line  of  argument  is  not  only 
maliciously  hostile  to  the  Bi  ble  but  is  a  gross 
fallacy.  If  Mormons  could  prove  every 
word  of  the  Bible  to  be  false  and  that  the 
Bible  had  every  fault  that  we  find  with  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  it  would  only  overthrow 
the  Bible.  It  would  not  establish  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Proving 
that  Webster's  dictionary  is  full  of  faults 
does  not  prove  that  a  book  that  contains 
those  faults  is  correct,  but  on  the  contrary, 
it  destroys  Webster  as  authority.  When 
the  vile  character  of  Joe  Smith  and  the 
founders  of  Mormonism  is  exposed  Mor- 
mons point  to  the  character  of  Baalam, 
Saul,  King  of  Israel,  Jonah,  and  Caiphas. 


If  they  are  willing  to  place  Imposter  Joe  in 
the  same  category  as  Baalam  with  his  greed 
of  gain  and  evil  character,  Sati!  with  his 
murderous  hatred  and  vile  character,  Jonah 
with  his  rebellious  wicked  character,  Cai- 
phas  with  his  murderous  sectarian  hatred 
of  Jesus,  we  will  remind  them  that  though 
God  did,  in  the  dark  surroundings  of  those 
days  use  those  persons  for  certain  unim- 
portant purposes,  he  did  not  make  them 
founders  of  dispensations,  much  less  the 
last  one,  and  the  one  that  is  the  fulness  of 
the  Gospel.  For  such  purposes  he  chose  a 
Noah,  an  Abraham,  a  Moses,  an  Elijah,  a 
Paul,  and  a  Jesus  the  Son  of  God. 

If  the  Mormon  points  to  the  sins  and  er- 
rors of  Noah,  Lot,  Abraham,  and  others 
that  were. children  of  God,  or  inspired  ac- 
cording to  the  Bible,  when  we  point  out 
the  sins  of  Joe  Smith  and  the  founders  of 
Mormonism  we  wish  to  remind  him  that 
Noah's  drunkenness  was  accidental  and  the 
Bible  does  not  say  it  was  repeated  There 
is  not  one  particle  of  proof  that  Noah  knew 
what  would  be  the  effects  of  fermented 
grape  juice  until  he  was  made  drunk  by  it, 
or  that  he  ever  repeated  the  act.  Lot's 
incest  was  not  voluntary  ;  there  is  not  one 
scrap  of  evidence  that  Lot  was  inspired  ; 
the  Bible  does  not  say  that  he  ever  was. 
Abraham's  acts  were  the  sins  of  his  age ; 
his  polygamy  was  rather  the  act  of  Sarah 
and  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the 
day  than  a  wilful  sin  of  Abraham.  There 
is  no  proof  that  Abraham  knew  that  he 
was  doing  wrong.  The  sins  of  Isaac  and 
Jacob  were  the  sins  of  their  times,  resulting 
from  the  evil  advice  of  others.  David's 
sing  were  the  sins  of  his  age ;  he  was  terri- 
bly punished  for  them.  Solomon  was  not 
a  child  of  God  or  inspired  after  he  sinned. 
Paul's  sins  were  those  of  honest  bigotry ; 
he  was  a  grand  character,  honest  and  manly 
even  in  his  persecution.  Peter's  sins  were 
those  of  cowardice  and  disappointment, 
inasmuch  as  the  Messiah  did  not  act  as 
he  expected  he  would.  These  persons  re- 
pented. Their  sins  were  the  sins  of  their 
age.  They  were  in  advance  of  their  age. 
They  were  great  characters  notwithstand- 
ing their  sins.  In  the  case  of  Joe  Smith  we 
have  one  who  tells  us  that  he  examined  all 
religious  parties.  He  found  that  all  had 
apostatized.  None  were  good  enough  for 
Joe.  He  was  the  chosen  instrument  of 
heaven  to  found  a  purer  system  than  the 
world  had  ever  seen.  He  can  not  be  placed 
on  a  level  with  Noah,  Abraham,  David,  or 
Paul  and  their  surroundings.  He  came 
after  eighteen  hundred  years  of  pro- 
gress under  the  gospel  of  Christ.  He 
appeared  in  the  purest  Christian  surround- 
ings of  this  century.  He  was  to  give  to  the 
world  a  religion  that  stood  related  to  apos- 
tolic Christianity  as  that  stood  related  to 
Judaism,  l<  the  fullness  of  the  gospel." 

His  system  was  to  be  as  much  above 
his  surroundings  as  Christianity  was  to  its 
surroundings  when  it  appeared.  God  ia 
selecting  Noahj  Abraham,  Moses,  Elijah, 
John  the  Baptist  and  Paul,  selected  the 
grandest  characters  in  their  age.  He  did 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KKLLEY  DEBATE. 


thia  In  the  dark  surroundings  of  former 
dispensations.  What  would  hedoin  select- 
ing a  person  for  a  mission  that  Smith  pre- 
tended was  committed  to  him,  and  in 
the  surroundings  in  which  Smith  appeared 
Smith  should  be  as  much  superior  to  Noah, 
Moses  and  Paul  as  his  surroundings  were 
superior  to  theirs,  and  his  mission  higher 
than  theirs.  The  Book  of  Mormon  should 
be  as  much  superior  to  the  Bible  as  the  New 
Testament  was  to  the  Old  Testament.  Its 
inspired  author,  its  suroundings  should  be 
as  much  superior.  That  is  what  Mormons 
claim  for  it. 

This  argument  of  Mormonism  is  merely 
the  silly  retort  of  the  sneaking  boy  who 
when  caught  in  lying  or  theft  and  exposed, 
hangs  his  head  and  mutters,  "  Well  I  don't 
care,  you're  another."  It  is  as  full  of  infi- 
delity as  Ingersoll's  attacks  on  the  Bible. 
Unable  to  lift  their  contemptible  false  pro- 
phet to  the  skies,  the  level  of  the  Sons 
of  Uod,  they  would,  with  the  malice  of 
fiends,  drag  the  angels  of  religion  down 
to  his  vile  level.  When  we  expose  the 
ignorance,  the  illiteracy,  the  contradictions 
of  their  vile  imposture,  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, they  assail  with  all  the  malignity  of 
infidelity  the  character  of  the  Bible.  If 
their  foul  imposture  is  exposed,  they  strive 
with  the  malice  of  Infidel  bate  to  befoul  the 
Bible  by  loading  it  with  the  same  faults. 
When  we  expose  Impostor  Joe's  blasphem- 
ous interpolations  and  change  of  the  text 
of  the  Bible,  we  are  treated  to  a  malicious 
re-hash  of  old  exploded  infidel  attacks  on 
the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Bible  ;  we  have  a  malicious  infidel  attempt 
to  drag  the  Bible  down  so  low  that  Impos- 
tor Joe's  corruptions  of  It  will  be  of  no 
more  consequence  than  changing  one  of  the 
thousand  versions  of  nursery  tales.  We 
<have  in  Mormon  writings,  in  the  preface  to 
a  pretended  inspired  translation  of  the  Bi- 
ble as  malicious  infidelity  as  can  be  found 
in  Ingersoll's  writings.  In  the  defense  of 
Impostor  Joe  and  his  illiterate  blundering 
frauds  can  be  found  as  cowardly  malicious 
Attacks  on  the  Bible,  Bible  characters  as 
can  be  found  in  any  infidel  production.  It 
Is  time  that  the  sheep's  clothing  was  strip- 
ped off  of  this  imposture  that  claims  to  be 
the  fullness  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  but 
•hows  its  hatred  of  the  Bible  when  its  real 
character  is  exposed.  Judging  from  its 
attacks  on  the  Bible,  the  purity  of  its 
text,  the  proofs  of  its  origin,  the 
character  of  its  prophets,  and  the 
literary  character  of  the  Bible.  Mormonism 
is  the  vilest  system  of  infidelity  extant, 
for  it  is  the  most  hypocritical.  Pretending 
to  restore  the  Bible  in  its  purity,  Christian- 
ity in  its  primitive  power,  it  bedaubs  in  its 
slanderous  assaults  the  Bible  as  a  book,  its 
evidences,  its  literary  character,  the  char- 
acter of  its  prophets,  and  tries  to  drag  them 
to  a  level  with  Joe  Smith  and  his  frauds. 
As  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  so  largely  sto- 
len from  the  Bible,  the  Mormon  in  his  infi- 
del attacks  destroys  his  own  book  when  he 
destroys  the  Bible.  It  is  not  enough  that 
the  Book  of  Mormon  be  as  good  as  the 
Bible,  it  must  be  far  better.  The  same  cir- 


cumstances cannot  be  urged  In  its 
that  can  be  urjjed  in  defense  of  ti  iMe. 
But  few  of  the  writers  of  the  Bil.i  mil  us 
they  were  inspired,  the  writers  an<l  speak- 
ers of  the  Book  of  Mormon  are  cons  mtly 
telling  us  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  has 
told  them  that  it  is  talking  through  them. 
There  is  scarcely  one  that  does  noi  inform 
us  of  his  inspiration.  Not  only  so  nut  these 
inspired  persons  were  inspired  above  all 
writers  and  speakers  of  the  Bible  except  the 
apostles  of  Christ  after  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
The  Holy  Spirit  was  not  given  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  and  in  all  his  fullness  until  that 
time,  but  Lehi  and  Nephi,  the  first  writers 
and  speakers  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  had  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  name  of  Jesus  600  years 
before  Jesus  came,  as  fully  and  completely 
as  Paul.  They  had  revelations  600  years 
before  Christ  that  were  as  perfect  and  com- 
plete as  any  given  to  the  apostles,  in  fact 
more  complete.  The  apostles  did  not  settle 
by  revelation  every  subject  of  religious 
controversy  of  the  nineteenth  century  as 
positively  and  completely  and  dogmatically 
as  any  controversialist  could  do  it.  The  in- 
spired men  of  tne  Book  of  Mormon  did  so 
and  were  inspired  far  beyond  the  apostles. 
But  few  of  the  Bible  writers  were  told 
to  write  what  they  wrote;  nearly  every 
writer  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  writes  in 
obedience  to  a  personal  divine  command. 
But  few  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible  were 
cautione'd  to  take  steps,  very  careful  pre- 
cautions to  preserve  what  they  had  writ- 
ten ;  nearly  all  of  the  writers  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  were  so  warned  and  cprumxnded. 
We  have  no  instances  of  men  being  inspired 
to  revise  and  correct  the  books  of  the  Bible; 
such  was  constantly  the  case  with  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  Not  a  particle  of  the  Bible 
was  preserved  by  miracle ;  each  and  every 
portion  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the 
authorities  on  which  it  is  based  were  so 
preserved.  Again,  the  Book  of  Mormon 
stands  related  to  the  New  Testament  as  the 
New  does  to  the  Old  :  it  contains  the  "  full- 
ness of  the  Gospel,"  or  which  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  but  an  outline.  There  were 
churches  and  all  the  teachings  of  Christ 
among  the  Nephites  for  hundreds  of  years 
before  Christ  as  perfect  as  ever  existed 
among  the  Israelites  after  he  came,  and  of 
course  the  revelations  to  such  a  highly 
favored  people  must  have  been  as  much 
more  perfect  and  complete.  The  Israelites 
in  the  old  continent  had  only  vague  out- 
fines  of  the  gospel  in  their  revelations.  The 
Nephites  had  the  Gospel  as  perfect  as  the 
Apostles  had  it.  The  Israelite  prophets 
had  to  study  what  their  own  utterances 
meant.  The  Nephites  had  all  the  words, 
acts  and  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles in  the  very  language  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles.  The  Nephites  enjoyed  for  hun- 
dreds of  years  "the  fullness  of  the  Gospel," 
while  the  Israelites  on  the  old  continent 
were  in  the  darkness  of  its  dim  twilight. 
The  writers,  speakers  and  actors  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  ought  to  excel  those  of  the 
Bible  as  much  as  their  condition  excelled 
that  of  the  writers  and  speakers  of  the 
Bible. 


100 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   KELLEY'S  TENTH    SPEECH. 


MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — When  my  time  was  called  I 
had  just  read  the  statement  from  their  own 
history  with  regard  to  Mr  Rigdon,  and 
made  a  few  hurried  comments  upon  the 
same  and  passed  to  a  review  of  his  work  as 
a  minister  to  the  time  when  Mr.  Pratt  call- 
ed upon  him  with  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Up  to  this  time  Rigdon  had  been  an  en- 
thusiastic and  constant  laborer  in  the  "Re- 
form Movement,"  as  it  was  then  called,  as 
is  fully  setout  in  the  history  of  the  Disci- 
ples themselves,  and  his  time  so  occupied 
.in  his  ministerial  labors  that  it  was  not  pos- 
sible for  him  to  have  left  his  work  and  du- 
ties to  visit  Smith  who  at  this  time  lived, 
by  the  nearest  way  of  travel,  250  miles  dis- 
tant in  the  uncultivated  interior  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  and  when  there  were  no 
pleasant  and  easy  lines  of  travel  as  now. 
The  Disciple,  (Camp belli te)  history  seta 
forth,  that  Rigdon  was  their  standing  min- 
ister for  the  year  1825,  at  Bainbrirtge,  Ohio, 
tor  the  year  1826  at  Mentor  and  Bainbridge. 
for  the  year  1827  at  Mantua;  for  the  year 
1828,  at  'Mentor,  and  this  year  is  the  time 
when  he  met  Alexander  Campbell  at  War- 
ren, Ohio,  at  their  assembly,  where  the  fa- 
mous passage  at  arms  took  place  between 
Campbell  and  Rigdon  of  which  so  much  has 
been  said.  The  next  year,  1S29,  Rigdon  con- 
tinued the  work  in  Mentor,  and  at  Euclid, 
and  founded  the  church  in  Perry,  Ohio, 
Aug.  7th.  The  next  year.  1830,  he  continu- 
ed as  their  minister,  (and  the  ablest,  of  them 
all,)  at  Mentor,  Euclid,  Kirtland.  and  oc- 
casionally at  Hiram,  Mantua,  Perry,  and 
Painsville,  and  using  the  words  of  their 
own  history,  which  shows  a  disposition  to 
temean  him  all  possible,  because  he  made 
up  his  mind  the  Discipies  did  not  have  the 
truth,  he  is  shown  to  be  the  leadei  of  them. 
It  says 

•Sidney  Rigdon  was  an  orator  of  no  inconsiderable 
Ability  In  person,  he  was  full  medium  height,  rotund 
in  form,  of  countenance,;while;speaking,  open  and  win- 
ning, with  n  little  oast  of  melancholy  His  action  was 
graceful,  his  language  copious,  fluent  tn  utterance, 
with  articulation  clear  and  musical/' 

Oh  !  Thi«  is  the  pompous  old  Rigdon 
that  Braden  is  talking  about  is  it  ?  This  is 
the  fellow  from  whose  crown  Bro  Scott 
plucked  a  feather,  and  pulled  off  of  Ahas: 
ueras'  horse.  Here  Rigdon  is  traced  by 
their  own  history  till  October,  1830,  where 
he  is  found  as  a  live  worker  for  the  "Relorm 
Movement,"  as  they  called  it,  when  three 
of  our  ministers  open  •  up  meetings  in  the 
district  of  Rigdon's  charge  and  for  the  first 
time  he  meets  che  expounders  of  the  gospel 
of  Christ  in  its  fullness,  and  also  has  an  op- 
portunity of  reading  that  same  gospel  as 
contained  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

What  does  he  do?  Like  my  friend  Mr. 
Braden  here,  he  makes  opposition  with  all 
his  great  eloquence  and  powers,  contesting 
the  "New  religion,"  as  they  called  it,  at  ev- 


ery step,  till  every  argument  was  taken 
from  him,  when  from  the  honestv  of  his 
heartand  desire  for  truth  rather  than  error, 
he  accepted  the  faith,  was  publicly  with  his 
wife,  then  and  there  baptised,  preferring  to 
endure  the  reproaches  of  Christ  lor  a  season 
by  accepting  the  full  and  complete  gospel, 
rather  than  to  reject  and  retain  his  popular- 
ity in  the  world.  Was  he  the  "ignoramus," 
my  audience,  Bradeu  has  made  him  out 
to  be?  Many  of  you  knew  him!  After  this  he 
ceases  preaching  and  goes  to  work,  and  in  a 
few  months  he  goes  to  New  York  State  and 
for  the  first  time  in  his  life  sees  and  makes 
the  acquaintance  of  Joseph  Smith.  In  this 
connection  I  introduce  the  affidavit  of  Mrs. 
Katherine  Salisbury: 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS.)  .. 
Kendall  County       f  ••• 

I.  Katherine  Salisbury,  being  duly  sworn,  depose  and 
say  that  I  am  a  resident  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and 
have  been  for  forty  years  last  past ;  that  I  will  be  68 
years  of  ape  July  '28th.  1881. 

That  1  am  a  daughter  of  Joseph  Smith, 
Sen  ,  and  a  sister  to  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  the 
translator  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  That 
at  the  time  the  said  book  was  published,  I 
was  seventeen  years  of  age;  that  at  the 
time  of  the  publication  of  said  book  my 
brother,  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  lived  in  the 
family  of  my  father,  in  tha  town  of  Man- 
chester, Ontario  County,  New  York,  and 
that  he  had  all  of  his  life  to  this  time  made 
his  home  witn  the  family. 

That  at  the  time,  and  for  years  prior 
thereto,  I  lived  in  and  was  a  member  of 
such  family,  and  personally  knowing  to 
the  things  transacted  in  said  family,  and 
those  who  visited  at  my  father's  house,  and 
the  friendtj  of  the  family,  and  the  friends 
and  acquaintances  of  my  brother  Joseph 
Smith,  Jr.,  who  visited  at  or  came  to  my 
father's  house. 

That  prior  to  the  latter  part  of  tbe  year 
A.  D.  1830,  there  was  no  person  who  visited 
with,  or  was  an  acquaintance  of,  or  called 
upon  the  said  family  or  any  member  there- 
of to  my  knowledge,  by  the  name  of  Sid- 
ney Rigdon  ;  nor  was  such  person  known 
to  the  family,  or  any  member  thereof,  to  my 
knowledge,  until  the  last  part  of  tbe  year 
A.  D.  1830,  or  the  first  part  of  the  year  1831, 
and  some  time  after  the  organization  of  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  by  Joseph  Hmith, 
Jr.,  and  several  months  after  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

That  I  remember  the  time  when  Sidney 
Rigdon  came  to  my  father's  place,  and  that 
it  was  after  the  removal  of  my  father  from 
Waterloo,  N.  Y.,  tu  Kirtlaud,  Ohio.  That 
this  was  in  the  year  1831,  and  some  mouths 
after  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
and  fully  one  year  after  the  Church  was  or- 
ganized, as  before  stated  herein. 

That  1  make  this  statement  not  on  account 
of  fear,  favor  or  hope  of  reward  of  any  kind, 
but  simply  that  the  truth  may  be  known 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


101 


with  reference  to  said  matter,  and  that  the 
foregoing  statements  made  by  me  are  true, 
as  I  verily  believe. 

•  KATHERINE  SALISBURY. 

Sworn  to  before  me,  and  subscribed  in  my 
presence,  by  the  said  Catherine  Salisbury, 
this  15th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1881. 

J.  H.  JKNKS,  Notary  Public." 

P.  P.  Pratt,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  at 
the  time  this  Spaulding  story  first  came 
out,  gives  his  testimony  and  knowledge  of 
the  matter  for  publication  in  a  letter  to  the 
New  Era,  N.  Y.  He  says  : 

"I  myself  had  the  happiness  to  present 
it"  (the  Kook  of  Mormon),  to  him"  (Rig- 
don),  in  person  "  "He  was  much  surprised, 
audit  was  with  much  persuasion  and  ar- 
gument that  he  was  prevailed  upon  to  read 
it,  and  after  he  had  read  it,  he  had  a  great 
struggle  of  mind  before  he  fully  balieved 
and  embraced  it." 

The  idea  has  been  thrown  out  to  the  world 
that  Sidney  Rigdon  drank  right  into  the 
faith  of  the  Saints,  without  an  effort  to 
disprove  it.  This  is  far  from  the  truth,  as 
the  witnesses  upon  both  sides  testify. 
There  is  absolutely  no  contradiction  of  this 
by  any  reliable  testimony  upon  eitherside. 
Does  not  this  evidence  then  completely 
break  every  link  in  the  cunning  device 
gotten  up  and  peddled  out  as  the  "Spauld- 
ing romance?" 

1.  The  only  witnesses  well  enough  con- 
versant with  the  manuscript  to  testily  show 
it  was  entirely  different  from  and  not  suffi- 
cient by  hundreds  of  pages  to  make  the 
Book  of  Mormon. 

2.  It  was  not  in  Pittsburg  when  Rigdon 
was   there,   and  Rigdon  never  got  or  saw 
it. 

3.  Joseph  Smith  and  Sidney  Rigdon  never 
met  until  near  two  years  after  the  book  was 
in  press  and  ayear  after  publication. 

4.  The  persons  who  had  the  manuscript 
in  their  possession  and  claimed  that  their 
affidavits  were  true,  were  the  very  ones  who 
destroyed   the  manuscript  lest  it  destroy 
their  affidavits. 

5.  In    the  very  places  where    they    say 
Spanldiug's  manuscript  was  best  known  is 
where  the  Saints  gathered   many  converts 
and  were  the  most  successful  in  disproving 
these  stories. 

But  he  says,  "what  about  the  evidence  of 
John  Spaulding,  where  he  arose  after  the 
reading  of  the  book  in  the  meeting  and  de- 
nounced it."  This  is  what  I  say  about  it. 
It  bears  the  stamp  of  falsehood  upon  its 
face  and  in  this : — It  was  the  statement  in 
a  meeting  held  by  a  Mormon  woman  preach- 
er, who  read  the  book,  they  say.  The 
church  in  the  first  place  never  had  a  woman 
preacher.  I  deny  that  there  ever  was  such 
»  preacher.  Yet  this  is  the  basis  for  the 
story  that  they  arose  and  denounced  it. 
See  Smucker  page  43,  History  of  the  Mor- 
mons. 

2.  John  Spaulding,  nor  no  other  Spauld- 
ing, ever  arose  in  any  meeting  of  the  Saints 
and  madeany  such  a  claim.  It  would  never 
have  been  done  without  the  Minister  re- 
porting it  to  the  society  and  none  was  ever 


so  made.  John  Spaulding  never  placed 
himself  where  he  could  be  cross-examined 
on  this  matter,  and  none  of  thei?  other  pre- 
tended witnesses,  not  one.  But  Mr.  Braden 
has  already^  taken  a  course  in  which  he 
abandons  his  claim  of  Rig-don's  connection 
at  Pittshurg,  and  wants  to  show  that  Smith 
stole  the  manuscript  and  went  to  Ohio,  and 
roped  Rigdon  in.  Smith  he  says,  worked 
for  Sabine  in  1823  or  1824,  and  this  is  when 
the  second  revelation  came  out.  He  had 
access  to  the  Spaulding  story.  Ah  !  but  he 
is  caught  here  again.  Mrs.  Spaulding  and 
her  daughter  were  at  Sabiue's  till  1820, 
when  Mis.  Spaulding  got  married  to  David- 
son. 

Then  they  leave  and  order  their  trunk 
sent  to  Jerome  Clark,  New  York,  for  safe 
keeping,  from  which  place  she  afterwards 
got  it  and  the  contents  were  all  right  so  she 
says,  including  the  manuscript. 

What  is  the  insinuation  here — that  Smith 
either  stole  the  manuscript  and  copied  it 
himself,  or  else  during  the  time  he  was 
working  for  Sabine  he  went  to  Ohio 
and  gave  it  to  Rigdon.  But  Smith  was  no 
scribe  so  that  would  not  do  aud  there  was 
no  chance  for  him  to  get  to  Ohio,  if  he 
worked  for  Sabine.  Why  !  a  man  who  can 
believe  such  a  yan  as  that,  it  seems  to  me, 
ought  to  believe  most  anything.  Gulliver's 
travels,  Robinson  Crusoe  and  all.  They 
have  not  the  first  fact  to  base  the  story 
upon.  Smith  did  not  work  for  Sabine  as 
they  claim  in  1823  or  1824.  He  was  then  a 
boy  in  Wayne  county,  New  York,  at  least 
50  miles  from  where  Sabine  lived.  Then, 
canvass  for  a  moment  the  weight  there  is  in 
the  claim  that  the  Histories,  Encyclopedias, 
Theological  Dictionaries,  etc.,  state  it  was 
the  Spaulding  Romance. 

This  is  like  his  testimony  on  the  Polygamy 
question  over  at  Wilber.  Most  all  of  these 
works  give  both  sides  of  the  question  —  set 
out  Smith's  claim,  and  then  set  out  his 
enemies'  claim.  Now  if  the  fact  that  one 
being  in  these  works  makes  it  true,  it  will 
equally  follow  with  the  other.  None  of 
them  claim  that  there  are  sufficient  facts  to 
sustain  the  Spauldiug  romance  as  to  justify 
them  in  refusing  a  word  from  the  friends 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  If  these  works 
have  found  facts  to  settle  it  for  the  side  of 
the  romance,  what  is  the  use  of  our  debat- 
ing? Why  not  send  this  audience  a  book 
that  will  settle  the  question  aud  let  them 
read  for  themselves!  Don't  forget  also, 
that  in  the  most  of  those  same  works  there 
is  such  a  prejudiced  account  as  to  many  of 
the  different  religious  bodies,  that  very  few 
of  the  denominations  are  satisfied  that  they 
have  justice  done  them,  the  Disciples  with 
the  others. 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  some 
proofs  with  regard  to  this  matter  of  what 
Smith  did,  how  these  stories  were  started 
about  him  and  Rigdon,  etc.  Also  to  some 
things  that  have  been  referred  to  by  my 
opponent.  Taking  up  the  testimony  "f  Mr. 
Saunders  first.  I  read  y«m  a  published 
interview  of  March  5th,  1881,  ISaiiiiB  Herald, 
page  165,  as  follows : 


102 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Entering  upon  conversation  with  refer- 
ence to  our  business,  Mr.  Saunders  at  once 
said  :  "  Well  you  have  come  to  a  poor  place 
to  find  out  anything.  I  don't  know  an"- 
thing  against  these  men  myself,"  (i.Al- 
dently  judging  that  we  wanted  to  get 
something  against  them  only). 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  them  Mr. 
Saunders? 

A.  Yes  sir ;  I  knew  all  of  the  Smith  family 
well;  there  were  six  boys;  Alvin,  Hyrum. 
Joseph,  Harrison,  William  and  Carlos,  ana 
there  were  two  girls ;  the  old  man  was  a 
cooper  ;  they  have  all  worked  for  me  many 
a  day ;  they  were  very  good  people  ;  Young 
Joe,  (as  we  called  him  then),  has  worked 
for  me,  and  he  was  a  good  worker  ;  they  all 
were.  I  did  not  consider  them  good  mana- 
gers about  business,  but  they  were  poor 
people  ;  the  old  man  had  a  large  family. 

Q,.  In  what  respect  did  they  differ  from 
other  people  if  at  all  ? 

A.  I  never  noticed  that  they  were  differ- 
ent from  other  neighbors;  they  were  the 
best  family  in  the  neighborhood  in  case  of 
sickness ;  one  was  at  my  house  nearly  all 
the  time  when  my  father  died;  I  always 
thought  them  honest;  they  were  owing  rne 
some  money  when  they  left  here;  that  is 
the  old  man  and  Hyrum  did,  and  Martin 
Harris.  One  of  them  came  back  in  about  a 
year  and  paid  me. 

Q.  How  were  they  as  to  habits  of  drinking 
and  getting  drunk  ? 

A.  Everybody  drank  a  little  in  those  days 
and  the  Smiths  with  the  rest;  they  never 
got  drunk  to  my  knowledge? 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  man  was  Martin 
Harris? 

A.  He  was  an  honorable  man.      Martin 
Harris  was  one  of  the  first  men  in  the  town. 
Q.  How  well  did  you  know  young  Joseph 
Smith? 

A.  Oh!  just  as  well  as  one  could  very 
well  ;  he  has  worked  for  me  many  a  time, 
and  been  about  my  place  a  great  deal.  He 
stopped  with  me  many  a  time,  when  through 
here,  after  they  went  west  to  Kirtland  ;  he 
was  always  a  gentleman  when  about  my 
place 

Q.  What  did  you  know  about  his  finding 
that  book,  or  the  plates  in  the  hill  over 
there? 

A,  He  always  claimed  that  he  saw  the 
angel  and  received  the  book ;  but  I  don't 
know  anything  about  it.  Have  seen  it,  but 
never  read  it  as  I  know  of;  didn't  care 
anything  about  it. 

Q,.  Well  you  seem  to  differ  a  little  from 
a  good  many  of  the  stories  told  about  these 
people. 

A.  I  have  told  you  just  what  I  know 
about  them,  and  you  will  have  to  go  some- 
where else  for  a  different  story." 

I  claim  your  attention  next  while  I  read 
the  statements  of  J.  H.  Gilbert  taken  down 
as  he  made  them  and  afterwards  published 
and  furnished  him.  He  is  asked  first  the 
question:  "What  did  you  know  about  the 
Smiths,  Mr.  Gilbert?"  and  answers: 

I  knew  nothing  myself ;  have  seen  Joseph 
Smith  a  few  times,  but  not  acquainted  with 


him.  Saw  Hyrum  quite  often.  I  am  the 
party  that  set  the  type  from  the  original 
manuscript  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Q.  Did  you  change  any  part  of  it  when 
you  were  setting  the  type? 
A.  No,  sir;  we  never  changed  it  at  all. 
Q.  Why  did  you  not  change  it  and  cor- 
rect it? 

A.  Because  they  would  not  allow  us  to; 
they  were  very  particular  about  that.  We 
never  changed  it  in  the  least.  Oh  well, 
there  might  have  been  one  or  two  words 
that  I  changed  the  spelling  of,  I  believe  I 
did  change  the  spelling  of  one,  and  perhaps 
two ;  but  no  more. 

Q.  Did  you  set  all  the  type,  or  did  some 
one  help  you? 

A.  I  did  the  whole  of  it  myself,  and  helped 
to  read  the  proof,  too  ;  there  was  no  one  who 
worked  at  that  but  myself.  .  id  yo«  ever 
see  one  of  the  first  copies?  I  have  one  here 
that  was  never  bound.  Mr.  Graudin  the 
printer  gave  it  to  me.  If  you  ever  saw  a 
Book  of  Mormon  you  will  see  that  they 
changed  it  afterwards. 

Q.  They  did !  well  let  us  see  your  ropy ; 
that  is  a  good  point.  How  is  it  changed 
now? 

A.  I  vi  1  show  you  (bringing  out  his 
copy).  Here  on  the  first  page  it  says  (read- 
ing) "Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  author  and  pro- 
prietor." Afterwards  they  left  that  out, 
and  only  claimed  that  Joseph  Smith  trans- 
lated it. 

Q.  Well,  did  they  claim  anything  else 
than  that  he  was  the  translator  when  they 
brought  the  manuscript  to  you  ? 

A.  Oh,  no;  they  claimed  that  he  was 
translating  it  by  means  of  some  instruments 
that  he  got  at  the  same  time  that  he  did  the 
plates,  and  that  the  Lord  helped  him. 

Q.  Was  he  educated,  do  you  know  ? 

A.  Oh,  not  at  all  then  ;  but  I  understand 
that  afterwards  he  made  great  advance- 
ment, and  was  quite  a  scholar  and  orator. 

Q,.  How  do  you  account  for  the  production 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  Mr.  Gilbert,  then, 
if  Joseph  Smith  was  so  illiterate? 

A.  Well,  that  is  the  difficult  question.  It 
must  have  been  from  the  Spaulding  ro- 
mance— you  have  heard  of  it,  I  suppose. 
The  parties  here,  then,  never  could  have 
been  the  authors  of  it,  certainly.  I  have 
been  for  the  last  forty-five  or  fifty  years  try- 
ing to  get  the  key  to  that  thing;  but  we 
have  never  been  able  to  make  the  connection 
yet.  For  some  years  past  I  have  been  cor- 
responding with  a  person  in  Salt  Lake  by 
the  name  of  Cobb,  who  is  getting  out  a  work 
against  the  Mormons;  but  we  have  never 
been  able  to  find  what  we  wanted. 

Q.  If  you  could  connect  Sidney  Rigdon 
with  Smith  some  way  you  could  get  up  a 
theory? 

A.  Yes;  that  is  just  where  the  trouble 
lies;  the  manuscript  was  put  into  our  hands 
in  August,  1829,  and  all  printed  by  March, 
1830,  and  we  cannot  find  that  Rigdon  was 
ever  about  here  or  in  this  State  until  i-ome 
time  in  the  fall  of  1830.  But  I  think  I  I  a  e 
got  a  way  out  of  the  difficulty  now.  A  fel- 
low that  used  to  be  here  by  the  name  of 


THE  BRADKN  AND  KKLLEY  DEBATE. 


103 


6aunders,  Lorenzo  Saunders,  was  back  here 
some  time  ago,  and  I  was  asking  him  about 
It.  At  first  he  said  he  did  not  remember  of 
seeing  Rigdon  until  after  1830  sometime; 
but  after  studying  it  over  a'while  he  said  it 
seemed  to  him  that  one  time  he  was  over 
to  Smith's  and  that  there  was  a  stranger 
there  he  never  saw  before,  and  that  they 
said  it  was  Rigdon.  I  told  him  about  Cobb, 
of  Utah,  and  asked  him  if  he  would  send 
Cobb  his  affidavit  that  he  saw  Rigdon  be- 
fore the  book  was  published,  if  he  (Cobb) 
would  write  to  him  ;  he  finally  said  he 
would,  and  I  wrote  to  Cobb  about  it,  and 
gave  Saunders'  address,  and  after  a  long 
time  I  got  a  letter  from  him  saj-ing  he  had 
written  three  letters  to  Saunders  and  could 
,get  no  answer.  I  then  sat  down  and  wrote 
Sauuders  a  letter  myself  reminding  him  of 
his  promise;  and  wrote  to  Cobb  also  about 
it;  and  after  a  long  time  Cobb  wrote  me 
again,  that  Saunders  had  written  to  him  ; 
but  I  have  never  learned  how  satisfactory 
it  was,  or  whether  he  made  the  affidavit  or 
not. 

Q.  Is  that  Saunders  a  brother  of  tha 
Saunders  living  down  here,  Orlando  Saun- 
ders? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  are  brothers. 

Q.  Is  he  older  or  younger? 

A.  Younger;  about  fifteen  years  younger. 

Q.  Then  he-must  have  been  quit<>  young 
before  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  published? 

A.  Yes,  he  was  young. 

Q.  This  Saunders  down  here  don't  talk 
like  a  great  many  people  ;  he  seems  to  think 
the  Smiths  were  very  good  people  ;  we  have 
been  there  to-day. 

A.  Oh  I  don't  think  the  Smiths  were  ttd 
bad  as  people  let  on  for.  Now  Tuikpj  it» 
his  work  told  too  many  big  things  ;  cct-^dy 
could  believe  his  stories. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  man  was  Martin  Har- 
ris? 

A.  He  was  a  very  honest  farmer  but  very 
superstitious. 

Q,.  What  was  he  before  his  name  was  con  • 
cected  with  the  Book  of  Mormon  ? 

A.  Not  anything  I  believe.  He  was  a 
kind  of  skeptic. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  his  being  super- 
stitious? Was  he  religious? 

A.  Well,  I  don't  know  about  that  •  but  he 
pretended  to  see  things. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  of  th»  Book  of 
Mormon  as  a  book  ;  you  are  well  posted  in  it? 

A.  Oh,  there  is  nothing  taught  in  the 
book  but  what  is  good  ;  there  ia  DO  dtnying 
that ;  it  is  the  claim  of  being  fror*  Ood  that 
I  strike  at. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  any  more  wonderful  than 
that  God  gave  the  Bible? 

A.  No,  not  a  bit,  and  there  is  a  good  deal 
more  evidence  to  show  that  that  is  divine 
than  there  is  for  some  of  the  books  in  the 
Bible.  Why,  it  is  all  nonsense  to  think  that 
Moses  wrote  some  of  the  books  attributed 
to  him  in  the  Bible. 

Q.  Then  you  don't  believe  the  fish  story, 
either,  Mr.  Gilbert? 

A.  No,  nor  that  Jonah  swallowed  the 
whule. 


Q.  How  about  Samson  catching  tLe 
three  hundred  foxes  and  the  firebrands? 

A.  Yes  ;  that  is  a  good  one  ,  you  fellows 
will  do. 

Q.  Much  dbliged,  Mr.  Gilbert. 

A.  You  are  quite  welcome;  I  wish  I  could 
give  you  more  than  I  have." 

Next!  refer  you  to  the  statements  made 
by  three  of  the  Jackaways  at  Palmyra,  es- 
pecially to  show  you  about  the  stories  of 
money  digging,  how  they  started,  &c.,  and 
that  they  had  no  foundation  in  fact.  The 
following  among  other  questions  were  asked 
these  parties : 

Q.  "Where  was  Joe  when  he  was  translat- 
ing his  book  ? 

A.  At  home;  it  was  translated  in  the 
farm  house. 

Q.  Mr.  Gilbert  across  here,  said  it  wan 
done  in  a  cave  ;  now  you  don't  agree.  What 
does  Tucker  say?  (reading  Tucker.) 

A.  They  all  differ.  Now  Tucker  ha*  a 
statement  from  Willard  Chase  in  his  book, 
and  Chase  said  Tucker  never  called  on  him 
at  all  to  find  out  what  he  knew. 

Lady.— Yes  ;  f  have  heard  Willard  Chase 
say  Tucker  never  even  asked  him  for  what 
he  knew,  and  Chase  lived  next,  door  to  him, 
too.  Chase  is  now  dead. 

Q.  Well,  did  you  ever  see  HuJburt  or 
Howe,  who  published  a  work  against  the 
Mormons  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  Hulburt  cans*  around  first,  I  be- 
lieve, soon  after  the  thins  started,  and  they 
had  gone  to  Kirlland.  Ohio,  trying  to  find 
things  against  them ,  and  there  have  been 
a  good  many  around  trying  to  connect  Sid- 
Ct-y  Rigdoo  with  them." 

Q.  "Howfardid  you  live  from  town  when 
thfr  Smiths  were  in  this  country? 

A    One-half  mile  south  of  Palmyra. 

Q  Were  you  acquainted  with  Joseph 
Smith  and  his  early  followers  ? 

A.  Yes.  I  knew  them;  seen  them  a  many 
a  time — old  Joe  and  young  Joe. 

Q.  How  far  did  you  livt  fro  a*  them? 

A.  It  was  about  a  mile. 

Q.  You  knew  about  their  digging  for 
money,  so  Mr.  Gilbert  said  ;  he  seut  us  to 
you. 

A  Oh,  yes;  J  can  show  you  the  places 
now  .  there  are  three  places  over  there 
where  they  dug. 

Q.  Well,  we  wnt  to  see  them.  Did  you 
help  them  dig? 

A.  No.    i  never  helped  them. 

Q.  Well,  you  saw  them  digging? 

A.  No;  I  never  saw  them  digging. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  they  dug  tb<*  holes 
you  refer  to  ? 

A.  1  don't  know  they  dug  them,  but  tne 
holes  are  there. 

Q,.  Did  anybody  else  dig  for  money  at 
that  time  there? 

A.  I  believe  there  were  some  others  that 
dug,  but  I  did  not  see  them. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  of  them? 

A  I  only  know  one  now  ;  he  lives  up  at 
Canandaigua." 

I  next  introduce  the  evidence  «f  Dr.  John 
Stafford,  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  son  of  Wil- 
liam Stafford,  made  so  conspicuous  by 


104 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Tucker  In  his  work  against  the  Mormons. 
In  answer  to  a  question  as  to  the  character 
of  Joseph  Smith.  Dr.  Stafford  said  : 

"  He  was  a  real  clever  boy.  What  Tucker 
said  about  them  was  false,  absolutely. 

Q.  What  about  that  black  sheep  your 
father  let  them  have9 

A.  I  have  heard  that  story,  but  don't 
think  my  father  was  tnere  at  the  time  they 
say  Smith  got  the  sheep.  I  don't  know 
anything  about  it. 

Q,.  You  were  living  at  home  at  the  time, 
and  it  seems  you  ought  to  know  if  they  got 
a  sheep,  or  stole' one  from  your  father? 

A.  They  never  stole  one,  I  am  sure  ;  they 
may  have  got  one  some  time. 

Q.  Well,  doctor,  you  know  pretty  well 
whether  that  story  is  true  or  not  that  Tucker 
tells.  What  do  you  think  of  it? 

A.  I  don't  think  it  is  true.  I  would  have 
heard  more  about  it  if  it  had  been  true.  I 
lived  a  mile  from  Smith's.  lam  76  years 
old.  They  were  peaceable  among  them- 
selves. The  old  woman  had  a  great  deal  of 
faith  that  their  children  were  going  to  do 
something  great.  Joe  was  illiterate.  After 
they  began  to  have  school  at  their  house 
he  improved  greatly. 

Q.  Did  they  have  a  school  at  their 
house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  had  school  in  their  house 
and  studied  the  Bible. 

Q.  Who  was  their  teacher? 

A.  They  did  not  have  any  teacher;  they 
taught  themselves. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Oliver  Cowdery? 

A.  Yes  ;  he  taught  school  on  the  Canan- 
daigua  Road,  where  the  stone  school  house 
now  stands,  just  three  and  a  half  miles 
from  Palmyra.  Cowdery  was  a  man  of 
good  character." 

Thomas  Taylor  at  Manchester  said  when 
interrogated  about  Mr.  Smith  and  family 
as  follows : 

"  Yes ;  I  knew  them  very  well ;  they 
were  nice  men,  too;  the  only  trouble  waa 
they  were  ahead  of  the  people,  and  the  peo- 
ple as  in  every  such  case,  turned  out  to 
abuse  them  because  they  had  the  manhood 
to  stand  for  their  own  convictions. 

Q.  What  did  the  Smith's  do  that  the 
people  abused  them  so? 

A.  They  did  not  do  anything.  Why! 
these  rascals  at  one  time  took  Joseph  Smith 
and  ducked  him  in  the  pond  that  you  see 
over  there,  just  because  he  preached  what 
he  believed  and  for  nothing  else.  And  if 
Jesus.  Christ  had  been  there  they  would 
have  done  the  same  to  him.  Now  I  don't 
believe  like  he  did;  but  every  man  has  a 
right  to  his  religious  opinions,  and  to  advo- 
cate his  views  too;  if  people  don't  like  it, 
let  them  come  out  and  meet  him  on  the 
stand  and  show  his  error.  Smith  was 
always  ready  to  exchange  views  with'  the 
best  men  they  had. 

Q.  Why  didn't  they  like  Smith? 

A.  To  tell  the  truth,  there  was  something 
about  him  they  could  not  understand  ;  some 
how  he  knew  more  than  they  did,  and  it 
made  them  mad. 

Q.  But  a  good  many  tell  terrible  stories 


about  them  being  low  people,  rogues  and 
liars,  and  such  things.  How  is  that? 

A.  Oh  !  they  are  a  set  of  liars.  I  have  had 
a  home  here,  and  been  here,  except  when 
on  easiness,  all  my  life — ever  since  I 
came  to  this  country*  and  I  know  these  fel- 
lows ;  and  they  make  these  lies  on  Smith 
because  they  love  a  lie  better  than  the  truth. 
I  can  take  you  to  a  great  many  old  settlers 
who  will  substantiate  what  I  say,  and  if 
you  want  to  go,  come  to  my  place  across 
the  way,  and  I'll  go  with  you. 

Q.  That  is  very  kind  Mr.  Taylor  ;  but  we 
are  first  going  to  see  these  fellows,  who,  so 
rumor  says,  know  so  much  against  him? 

A,  All  right;  but  you  will  find  they  don't 
know  anything  against  those  men  when 
you  put  them  down  to  it ;  they  could  never 
sustain  anything  against  Smith." 

I  have  read  you  the  foregoing  interviews 
for  the  reason  that  they  were  taken  down 
as  they  came  from  the  lips  of  the  parties 
and  may  be  relied  upon.  To  my  knowl- 
edge there  has  never  been  a  single  contra- 
diction of  one  of  these  statements  by  a 
single  one  of  the  parties  whose  testimony  I 
have  just  read  except  Gilbert's,  and  at  the 
proper  time  if  the  question  is  raised  I  will 
examine  his. 

This  thing  which  they  got  up  about  the 
Saints  is  an  entire  fraud,  and  I  will  prove 
It  by  comparing  the  work,  that  from  which 
my  opponent  draws  his  testimony,  this 
Howe  and  Hulburt  history,  with  our  works, 
and  show  you  that  they  nave  deliberately 
garbled  and  falsified,  and  moat  mischiev- 
ously perverted  our  works. 

Where  our  works  are  plain  and  distinct, 
they  have,  in  order  to  make  them  ridicu- 
lous, taken  out  words  and  clauses,  taken 
out  entire  sentences,  to  present  the  teach- 
ing as  bad.  Yet,  this  is  the  book  that  h» 
has  commended  to  you  and  been  reading 
his  statements  and  affidavits  from.  I  will 
show  you  further  in  the  discussion  that 
what  are  called  affidavits  or  statements  of 
John  Spaulding  and  Martha  Spaulding 
were  never  made  by  them,  and  that  in  fact 
he  has  no  such  :  and  if  I  don't  prove  all  of 
this,  then  I  want  you  to  denounce  me  be- 
fore this  audience. 

Mr.  Braden :  Why,  you  are  getting  ex- 
cited, my  friend. 

Mr.  Kelley:  Not  at  all,  not  at  all,  Bro. 
Braden.  1  am  emphatic  and  positive  in 
my  positions,  and  if  you  have  any  evidence, 
bring  it  on. 

Entering  upon  an  examination  of  this 
work  of  Hulburt  and  Howe,  I  cite  you  first 
some  of  their  false  representation*  and  spu- 
rious quotations,  contrasting  what  they  pre- 
tended to  quote  from  our  works  with  the 
true  reading. 

1.  Howe,    page     27  says: — "He   repre- 
sents Nephi  as  making  plates  in  the  wil- 
derness with  no  ore." 

Book  of  Mormon,  Palmyra  Edition,  page 
43,  shows  the  plates  were  made  after  the 
people  arrived  upon  this  continent,  and 
after  they  had  found  ore  with  many  other 
things. 

2.  Howe,  same  page,  "Has  a  command- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


105 


ment  from  tue  Lord  to  make  plates  for  the 
special  purpose  of  making  a  record  of  his 
own  ministry  and  his  own  people." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  17  •  "I  have  re- 
ceived a  commandment  from  the  Lord  that 
I  should  make  these  plates  for  the  special 
purpose  that  there  snould  be  an  account 
engraven  o(  the  ministry  of  my  people." 

S.Howe  again:  "Our  hero  introduces 
himself  *»s  a  minister." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  17:  "And  now  I, 
JSephi.  proceed  to  give  an  account  upon 
tnese  plates  and  of  my  proceedings  and  my 
reign  and  ministry." 

4.  Howe,  page  32.  "It  brought  them  all 
safely  or.  the  borders  of  the  Red  sea,  with 
the  exception  of  Ishmael." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  42  "And  we  did 
sojourn  for  the  space  of  many  years,  yea, 
even"  eight  years,  in  the  wilderness.  And 
we  aid  come  to  the  land  which  we  called 
bountiful,  because  oi  its  much  fruit.  And 
we  beheld  the  sea,  whicn  we  called  Irean- 
tum,  which  being  interpreted  is  many  wa- 
ters." Notice — There  is  no  Red  sea  about 
it. 

5.  Howe,  page  35:  ''Whether  the   ship 
was  propelled  by  oars,  or  oy  a  current,  or 
by  the  wind,  or  by  the  power  of  the  spin- 
dle, we  cannot  inform  our  readers,  for  it  is 
not  stated." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  48:  "And  it  came 
to  pass  that  after  we  had  all  gone  down 
in  to  the  ship  toiid  taken  with  us  our  provi- 
sions and  things  which  had  been  com- 
manded us,  we  did  put  forth  into  the  sea, 
and  were  driven  forth  before  the  wind  to- 
wards the  promised  land." 

6.  Take  another  specimen  of  his  professed 
truths  :  Howe,  page  38,  states  that  there  is 
an  exact  copy  of  the  48th  and  49th  chapters 
of  Isaiah  to  be  found  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon ;  and  that  they  are  introduced  with 
the  same  words  that  commence  the  chap- 
ter in  the  Bible,  intending  thereby  to  show 
that  they  were  copied  from  the  Bible  after 
it  was  divided  into  chapters  and  verses. 
This  is  wilfully  false ;  for  on  comparison,  it 
is  found  that  the  wording  of  the  prophesy 
is  different  in  its  very  introduction,  and 
there  are  numerous  differences  between  the 
two  books,  in  words,  sentences  and-  verses. 
Neither  can  one  tell  where  the  division  for 
a  new  chapter  should  be  made  in  the  read- 
ing of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  save  by  noting 
the  last  word  found  in  the  48th  chapter  of 
Isaiah,  until  he  gets  to  the  close  of  the  49th 
chapter,  where    the   subject  of  the«o  two 
chaptets  ends,  and  anew  subject  is  intro- 
duced, and  there  the  writer  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  left  off  writing.  The  claim  is  false. 
and  made  obviously  to  deceive.    They  are 
not  alike,  as  claimed  by  Howe.    Book  of 
Mormon,  page  52  to  56. 

7.  Again    Howe   says,    page    42 :    "The 
Nephites  warred  with  each  other  until  they 
exterminated  the  whole  race  except  three, 
who  were  immortalized." 

Book  of  Mormon,  pp.  493  to  496 :  "Yea, 
even  all  my  people,  save  it  were  those  twenty 
and  four  who  were  with  me,  and  alto  a  few 
had  escaped  into  the  south  countries. 


and  a  few  who  had  dissented  over  unto  the 
Lamanites,  had  fallen  and  their  flesh  and 
bones  and  blood  lay  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth  " 

8.  By  way  of  an  argument  it  is  again  stated: 
Howe,   page  44.    "The  Book  of  Mormon  is 
hard  to  understand." 

"Would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  any  book  whose  author  was  the  Holy 
Ghost,  would  be  clear  and  perfect  in  all  its 
parts — so  plain  that  the  wayfaring  man 
need  noterr." 

I  suggest  that  Mr.  Braden  try  John's 
Revelation  by  this  rule,  and  see  how  long 
ne  can  endorse  his  backer  Howe.  But  I 
proceed  with  the  contrast. 

9.  Howe,  png-o  .52:  'iWe  are  likewise  told 
in  the  same  discourse  that  the  plates  or 
book  would  be  sealed  up,  and  should  finally 
be  found  by  an  uulearned  man,  whosliould 
see  then,  and  show  them  to  three  others." 

Here  is  found  the  great  bugbear,  sought 
to  bi  kept  before  the  people  to  deceive. 
How  different,  however,  it  is  from  the  true 
reading. 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  110: 

"Wherefore,  at  that  dny  when  the  book  shall  be  de- 
livered unto  the  man  of  whom  I  have  spoken,  the  book 
shall  be  hid  from  the  eyes  of  the  world,  that  th  yc-s 
of  none  shall  behold  it,  save  it  lie  thnt  three  wi  neuet 
thall  beholdit,  by  thepowerof  6Vxi,  besides  him  to  whom 
the  book  shall  be  delivered,  and  they  shall  testify  to 
the  truth  of  the  book  and  the  tilings  tbi  rein.  And 
there  is  none  others  which  sha'l  view  it,  save  it  be  a 
few  according  to  the  will  of  God.  to  bear  testimony  of  hi* 
word  unto  tiie  children  of  men." 

10.  Another  illustration,  Howe,  p.  65: 

"  And  if  Christ  had  not  risen  from  the  dead  or  have 
broken  the  bonds  of  death,  that  the  ^-ave  should  have 
no  victory,  and  that  death  should  have  no  sting,  there 
could  have  been  no  resurrection. " 

He  endeavors  to  prove  by  the  tens*  of  the 
verb  here,  that  it  was  written  after  the  cru- 
cifixion of  Christ,  and  to  deceive  quotes 
only  a  part  of  the  text. 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  169:  "And  now  If 
Christ  had  not  come  into  the  world,  speak- 
ing of  things  to  come  as  though  they  had 
already  come,"&c.  This  he  deftly  leavei 
out.  But  again, 

11.  Howe,  pp.  68,  69:  Mosiah  causes  all 
records  to  be  revised,  and  "transcribes"  th« 
plates  of  brass  brought  out  from  Jerusalem." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  216 : 

"Now  Kin?  Mosiah  bad  no  one  to  confer  the  kin;, 
dom  upon,  for  there  was  not  any  of  his  sons  which 
would  accept  the  kingdom;  therefore  he  took  the  rec- 
ords which  were  engraven  upon  the  plate*  of  brass, 
and  also  the  plates  of  Nephi,  and  all  the  things  which 
he  had  kept  and  preserved  according  to  the  command- 
ments of  God,  and  after  having  translated  and  caused 
to  be  written  the  records  which  weie  on  t  e  plate*  91 
gold,  which  had  been  found  by  the  people  of  Limhi 
which  was  delivered  to  him  by  the  baud  of  Lirnhi, 
and  this  he  did  because  of  the  great  anxiety  of  hia 
people,  for  they  were  desirous  beyond  measure,  to 
know  concerning  those  people  which  had  been  de- 
stroyed. And  now  he  translated  them  by  means  of 
those  two  stones  which  were  fastened  into  the  two  run* 
of  a  bow." 

12.  Howe,  page  77 : 

"Smith  used  a  stone  in  a  hat  for  the  purpose  of 
translating  the  plntes.  The  spectacles  lUrim  and 
Thummim)  and  plntes  were  found  together,  but  were 
taken  from  him  and  hid  up  again  before  he  bad  trans- 
lated one  word,  and  be  has  never  seen  them  nince." 
"This  is  Smith's  own  story." 

The  following  is  the  account  by  Mr.  Smith 
himself: 


106 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


"I  copied  a  considerable  number  of  them,  and  by 
means  .if  the  Urim  and  Thummim  1  translated  some  of 
them,  which  I  did  between  the  time  I  arrived  at  the 
bouse  of  ray  wife's  father,  in  the  mouth  of  December, 
1827.  and  the  Fi  bruary  following." 

Again,  see  his  own  history  by  himself: 

"Bv  the  wisdom  of  God  they  (the  plates  Urim  and 
Thummim  and  breast-plate.)  remained  safe  In  my 
bands  until  I  had  accomplished  by  them  what  was  re- 
quired at  my  band,  when  according  to  arrangements 
the  messenger  called  for  them;  I  delivered  them  up  to 
him  and  he  has  them  in  his  charge  until  this  day, 
being  the  second  day  of  May,  1838."— Pearl  of  Great 
Price,  page  44. 

See  also  Cowdery's  statement : 

"  Day  after  day  I  continued,  uninterrupted,  to  write 
from  his  month,  as  he  translated  with  the  Urim  and 
Thummim,  or.  as  the  Nephites  would  have  said,  Inter- 
preters, the  history  or  record  called  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon." Ibid,  page  46. 

13.  Here  is  still  another  glaring  perver- 
sion  and  misrepresentation.     Howe,  page 
89 :     "  The  whole  record  being  handed  down 
and  altered  according  to  our   manner    of 
speech." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  538:  "And  now 
we  have  written  this  record  according  to 
our  knowledge  in  the  characters,  which  are 
called  among  us  reformed  Egyptian,  being 
handed  down  and  altered  by  us  according 
to  our  manner  of  speech." 

The  writer  says  the  characters  which  they 
used  in  writing  had  been  changed ;  Howe 
says,  the  record  was  changed. 

14.  Again,  Howe,  page  90 :  "  God  marched 
before  them  in  a  cloud." 

Book  of  Mormon,  pp.  541,  542,  and  48: 
"The  Lord  did  go  before  them,  and  talked 
to  them  while  he  stood  in  a  cloud,  and  gave 
directions  whither  they  should  travel." 

15.  Howe,  page  90 :  "They  make  a  hole  in 
the  top  to  admit  air  and  one  in  the  bottom 
to  admit  water ;   in  each   hole   was  put  a 
molten  stone,  which  when  touched  by  the 
finger  of  Jesus  became  as   transparent  as 
any  glass  and  gave  them  light  under  the 
mountain  waves.    Two  of  these  stones  were 
sealed   up  with   the  plates  according  to  a 
prediction  before  Abraham  was  born. 

"  Thou  shalt  make  a  hole  in  the  top  there- 


of and  in  the  bottom  thereof,  and  when 
thou  shalt  suffer  for  air,  thou  shalt  un.stop 
the  hole  thereof  and  receive  air.  And  if  it 
so  be  that  water  come  in  upon  thee  thou 
shalt  stop  the  hole." 

"  And  he  did  put  forth  the  stones  into  the 
vessels  which  are  prepared,  one  in  each  end 
thereof." 

Howe,  page  90:  "The  Lord  commanded 
him  that  he  should  seal  up  the  two  stones 
which  he  had  received  and  show  them  not." 
Not  a  word  about  Abraham. 

16.  Howe,  page  124:     "Even  their  wine 
they  used  for  communion  they  were  ordered 
to  make  from  cider  and  other  materials." 

Book  of  Covenants,  page  102:  "  You  shall 
not  purchase  wine,  neither  strong  drink 
from  your  enemies,  wherefore  you  shall 
partake  oi  none  save  it  is  made  new  among 
you." 

Nothing  about  cider  and  other  materials 
as  said  by  Howe. 

17.  Again,  Howe,  page  129:    "If   thou 
lovest  me,  thou  shalt  serve  me  and  keep  my 
commandments;  and  behold  fehou  shalt  con- 
secrate all  thy  properties,  that  which   thou 
hast,  unto  me,  with  a  covenant  and  a  deed 
which  cannot  be  broken." 

The  true  reading  of  the  Book  of  Cove- 
nants, page  143  :  "  If  thou  lovest  me,  thou 
shalt  serve  me  and  keep  all  my  command- 
ments. And  behold,  thou  will  remember 
the  poor,  and  consecrate  OP  thy  properties 
for  their  support,  that  which  thou  hast  to 
impart  unto  them,  with  a  covenant  and  a 
deed  which  cannot  be  broken  ;  and  inas- 
much as  you  impart  of  your  substance  unto 
the  poor,  ye  will  do  it  unto  me." 

.Howe  says,  "Thou  shalt  consecrate  all 
thy  properties,  that  which  thou  hast,  unto 
me."  Tue  truth  is  they  were  required  to 
consecrate  of  their  properties  that  which 
they  were  able  to  donate  for  that  purpose ; 
and  the  promise  was,  "  inasmuch  as  ye  im- 
part of  your  substance  unto  the  poor,ye  will 
do  it  unto  me." 

(Time  expired.) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


107 


MR.  BRADEN'S    TENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — The  Books  of  the  Bible  were 
written  on  papyrus,  parchment,  perishable 
material;  and  they  had  to  be  copied  and  re- 
vised to  preserve  them  ;  and  this  was  done 
by  uninspired  men  liable  to  err.  The  Book 
of  Mormon  was  engraved  by  inspired  men, 
on  plates,  imperishable material.and  needed 
no  copying.  If  the  Bible  was  revised  or 
arranged,  it  was  done  by  uninspired  men. 
The  Book  of  Mormon  was  revised,  abridged, 
by  inspired  men.  The  manuscripts  of  the 
Bible  were  written,  preserved,  and  handled 
by  uninspired  men.  The  plates  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  were  engraved,  preserved  and 
handled  by  inspired  men.  The  Bible  has 
come  down  to  us  without  any  miracle  in  its 
production,  except  in  the  inspiration  of  its 
inspired  men.  The  Book  of  Mormon  was 
written  by  miracle,  preserved  by  miracle, 
Its  existence  revealed  to  Smith  by  mir- 
acle. 

Our  translation  as  made  by  uninspired 
men.  They  had  to  determine  which  of  the 
various  readings  is  the  true  one,  which  of 
the  various  meanings  of  Greek  and  Hebrew 
words  is  the  right  one  in  each  passage,  then 
the  meaning  of  the  passage,  from  the  mean- 
ing and  use  of  its  words,  its  context,  its 
grammatical  structure,  and  this  was  the 
work  of  uninspired  learning.  But  Smith  had 
to  compare  no  various  readings.  He  had  the 
exact  words,  that  the  inspired  Mormon  en- 
graved. He  did  not  have  to  search  lexicons, 
and  grammars  for  meanings  and  uses  of 
words.  He  looked  into  his  interpreter  and 
God  himself  by  miracle  caused  the  word  to 
appear  before  Smith's  vision.  If  there  is  any 
mistake  God  made  it — not  Smith.  The  only 
chance  for  error  was  that  Smith  could  not 
read  the  word  correctly,  or  that  his  scribe 
did  not  understand  the  word  as  Smith  gave 
it  to  him  ;  but  as  Smith  was  inspired  he 
could  make  no  mistakes  and  as  Cowdrey 
was  directly  called  and  qualified,  according 
to  the  revelation  in  the  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants,  he  could  make  no  mistake. 
We  can  see  how  mental  peculiarities  and 
lack  of  education  could  affect  the  writers  of 
the  Bible,  and  understand  that  they  should 
appear  in  the  books  of  the  Bible ;  but  Smith's 
illiteracy,  iiis  mental  peculiarities,  and  style, 
ought  not,  could  not,  appear  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  for  God,  by  miracle,  placed  the 
word  before  Smith,  and  all  Smith  did  was  to 
read  it  and  repeat  it  to  Cowdrey,  and  all  Cow- 
drey  did  was  to  write  it.  Smith  and  Cow- 
drey had  no  more  to  do  with  the  words, 
style,  truth,  literary  character,  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  than  a  speaking  trumpet,  or  a 
telephone,  or  phonograph  have  with  what  a 
man  utters  through  them. 

The  angel  Moroni  declares  in  the  inspir- 
ed preface,  which  is  a  direct  revelation 
from  the  angel  God  authorized  to  give  this 
revelation  to  the  world,  that  it  is  "written  by 


'way  of  commandment  and  by  thespiritof 
'prophecy  and  revelation,  written  and  seal- 
'ed,  and  hid  up  by  the  command  and  inspir- 
'ation  of  God  ;  to  come  forth  by  the  inspira- 
'tion  and  power  of  God;  and  theinterpreta- 
'tion  (by  Smith)  was  by  thegift  of  God."   It 
was  all  done  by  inspiration,  by  God  him- 
self.   Not  only  so,  but  the  three  witnesses 
testify  "We  know  that  the  records  hav« 
"been  translated  by  the  gift  and  power  of 
"God  for  his  voice   declared    it  unto   us, 
"wherefore  we  know  of  a  certainty  that  the 
"word,    the   Book    of  Mormon    is    true." 
Why?  Because  God's  voice  declared  that  it 
was  true. 

The  only  opportunity  there  is  for  human 
error  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  is  in  typo- 
graphical errors,  and  there  can  be  none  of 
these,  for  it  was  proofread  by  inspired  men; 
and  the  caveat  that  it  is  pretended  Moroni 
issued  in  the  preface  "If  there  be  fault  it  be 
the  mistake  of  men,"  is  a  deliberate  lie,  since 
God  inspired  the  speakers,  actors,  and  wri- 
ters, as  fully  as  he  did  the  apostles,  since 
he  inspired  and  superintended  all  copying, 
since  he  gave  every  word  himself,  by  direct 
miracle  in  the  translation,  as  Moroni  himself 
tells  us  in  the  same  preface,  since  he  said, 
with  his  own  voice,  to  the  three  witnesses 
that  the  translation  was  his  own  work;  and 
that  the  Book  is  true.  There  can  be  no  mis- 
take of  man,  for  man  had  no  more  to  do  with 
it  than  a  telephone  has  with  what  it  utters. 
The  statement  of  Moroni  is  as  remarkable 
for  its  morality  as  for  its  grammar  "If  there 
be  fault  it  be  the  mistake  of  men."  The 
Almighty,  in  his  last  and  most  perfect  reve- 
lation, sends  out  faults,  a  bundle  of  false- 
hoods with  the  truth  that  he  gave  to  the 
world  word  by  word  by  Joe ;  and  which  he 
commanded  the  three  witnesses,  with  his 
own  voice,  to  declare  all  nations  and  tongues 
to  be  true. 

We  are  now  ready  to  examine  this  revela- 
tion we  affirm : 

1 .  That  God  would  not  give,  in  so  wonder- 
ful and  entirely  miraculous  a  manner,  a  book 
that  did  not  commend  itself  to  the  common 
sense  and  reason  of  men,  as  worthy  of  him, 
and  divine. 

2.  He  would  give  it  in  a  manner  worthy 
of  himself  and  such  a  miraculously  given 
book. 

3.  The  person  through  whom  it  was  given 
would    be   worthy   of    such   a   wonderful 
mission. 

4.  The  surroundings  should  be  worthy  of 
such  a.  work. 

5.  Its   utterances  should  agree  with  all 
established  truths. 

6.  They  should  agree  with  other  revela- 
tions in  the  Bible. 

7.  They  should  agree  with  other  revela- 
tions in  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants 
and  all  other  revelations  of  Joseph  Smith, 
or  any  other  inspired  men. 


108 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


8.  They  should  agree  with  the  Inspired 
translation  of  Joseph  Smith. 

9.  They  should   agree  with   themselves. 

10.  They  should  be  as  much  superior  to 
the  Bible,  as  their  origin  was  superior  to  the 
origin  of  the  Bible. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
had  on  the  title  page  written  by  inspira- 
tion, "Joseph  Smith  jr.,  Author  and  Propri- 
etor." Joe's  egotism  led  him  to  tell  the 
truth,  a  part  of  the  truth,  for  he  did  not 
give  credit  to  Spaulding  and  Rigdon,  but 
he  fearfully  contradicted  the  declaration  of 
inspiration,  in  the  Book  which  declares 
that  Mormon  and  Moroni  are  the  authors. 
Inspired  Joe  noticed  this  contradiction  and 
corrected  it  in  all  later  editions.  According 
to  this  inspired  title  page,  Jehovah  gave,  in 
the  most  miraculous  mariner  possible,  a 
revelation  higher  and  better  than  all  he  had 
ever  given  before  for  the  salvation  of  the 
human  race  and  constituted  ignorant,  lazy, 
loafing,  lying,  drinking,  swearing,  lewd, 
fortune- telling,  money-hunting  Joe  Smith 
Its  sole  proprietor  and  sole  sharer  of  its 
profits.  He  gave  to  Imposter  Joe,  under 
the  seal  of  R.  R.  Lansing,  District  Clerk  of 
Northern  New  York,  the  sole  right  to  vend 
this  revelation  that  is  the  fulness  of  the 
Gospel. 

In  the  introduction  to  the  first  edition  it 
seems  that  the  Mormon  God  had  not  found 
out  what  Lucy  Harris  did  with  the  116 
pages  that  she  burned.  The  Mormon  God 
issues  a  long  manifesto  to  guard  against  a 
trick  that  no  one  ever  dreamt  of  trying. 
The  Mormon  God  undertakes  to  circumvent 
any  persons  trying  a  trick  that  never  was 
imagined,  by  telling  Joe  to  publish  a  deli- 
berate lie.  He  is  to  translate  the  plates  of 
Nephi,  until  he  comes  to  the  same  event  as 
the  one  with  which  the  translation  from  the 
plates  of  Lehi  in  ttie  stolen  pages  ended, 
and  finish  with  the  plates  of  Lehi.  He  then 
is  to  publish  the  whole  as  a  translation  of 
the  plates  of  Nephi,  and  tell  a  lie.  How 
did  Joe  know  when  be  reached  that  point, 
as  he  did  not  have  the  plates?  Why  could 
not  the  Mormon  God  re-translate  from  the 
plates  of  Lehi,  as  well  as  translate  from  the 
plates  of  Nephi,  since  he  had  both?  The 
truth  is  that  Lucy  Harris  burnt  the  116 
pages  of  Spaulding's  Mormon  Manuscript 
No.  III.,  and  that  much  was  gone  beyond 
recovery.  Rigdon  had  to  re-model  a  portion 
of  Mormon  Manuscript  No.  IT.  to  take  the 
place  of  what  had  been  burnt. 

We  will  now  begin  our  analysis  of  the 
matter  in  the  book  itself.  On  page  1,  Nephi, 
an  Israelite  born  and  reared  in  Jerusalem, 
as  his  fathers  before  him  had  been  for  gen- 
erations, tells  us  that  he  writes  his  record 
in  the  language  of  his  fathers,  which  con- 
sists of  the  learning  of  the  Jews  and  the 
language  of  the  Egyptians.  There  are  four 
ridiculous  blunders  in  these  few  words. 
I.  The  writer  evidently  meant  to  imitate 
Stephen,  who  says  "Moses  was  learned  in 
all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians."  He 
gets  it  the  learning  of  the  Jews,  when  they 
were  inferior  to  the  Egyptians  in  learning. 
He  meant,  perhaps,  the  learning  of  the 


Egyptians.  II.  The  tena  Jew  is  not  in  th» 
original  of  the  Bible.  It  is  an  English  nick- 
name, just  as  "Yank"  is  a  nickname  for 
Yankee.  The  term  Judahite  or  Judean 
was  not  national,  the  name  of  a  people 
till  after  the  return  from  captivity.  III. 
The  preposterous  idea  that  an  Israelite 
raised  in  Jerusalem,  where  only  the  Hebrew 
was  spoken — whose  fathers  had  lived  in 
Jerusalem,  where  only  the  Hebrew  was 
spoken — could  say  that  the  language  of  his 
fathers  was  Egyptian,  a  language  that  the 
Israelties  abhorred,  as  they  did  everything 
Egyptian.  The  superstitious  reverence  of 
the  Israelites  for  the  Hebrew  is  well  known  ; 
yet  the  language  of  Nephi,  Hebrew  of  He- 
brews, was  Egyptian.  IV.  The  idea  that 
Jehovah  spoke  to  an  Israelite  in  Egyptian, 
when  he  never  used  in  his  revelations  to 
them  any  language  but  the  Hebrew.  It 
also  contains  a  falsehood,  for  Nephi's  fa- 
thers were  not  Jews,  but  Mannassehites  • 
the  learning  of  his  fathers  was  not  that  or 
the  Jews. 

We  could  drop  the  Book  of  Mormon  right 
here.  None  but  an  ignoramus  like  Rigdon, 
an  ignoramus  in  biblical  literature,  would 
have  committed  four  such  blunders  as  those 
we  have  given.  No  Israelite  ever  did.  On 
the  succeeding  pages  from  2  to  9,  we  are 
told  that  Lehi  was  compelled  by  persecu- 
tion to  flee  from  Jerusalem,  leaving  every- 
thing behind,  and  taking  nothing  but  hi» 
family,  some  tents  and  provisions.  By  com- 
mand of  the  Lord  Nephi  is  seen  returning 
to  Jerusalem  to  obtain  certain  plates  in  the 
possession  of  his  kinsman  Laban.  Nephi 
offers  Laban  his  father's  property  for  the 
plates.  Laban  refuses,  and  drives  NephJ 
and  his  brothers  out,  taking  their  property 
by  violence.  Nephi  returns,  makes  Labat 
drunk,  murders  him,  lies  to  his  servants 
gets  the  plates  and  returns  to  his  father 
who  has  a  shouting  time  over  the  results  o 
murder  and  lying.  This  account  is  fullo/ 
absurdities  and  contradictions.  I.  It  assert* 
that  the  writing  material  of  the  Israelites 
was  metallic  plates.  They  used  papyrus, 
tanned  leather,  parchment,  vellum,  linen 
smeared  with  gum,  tablets  smeared  with 
wax,  but  never  used  metallic  plates.  We 
read  of  metallic  plates  but  once  in  the 
Bible — in  the  Book  of  Job,  who  was  not  an 
Israelite,  and  nearly  1,000  years  before  this 
time.  II.  The  idea  that  God  approved  of 
Nephi's  making  Laban  drunk,  murdering 
him,  lying  to  his  servants,  and  robbing  him 
of  his  property.  III.  On  page  8  we  have  a 
talk  of  a  Church  and  Brethren  600  years  be- 
fore Christ.  Sidney  Rigdon's  gross  ignor- 
ance is  manifest  in  such  a  blunder.  Let  us 
see  what  these  five  men  carried  away :  (A.) 
The  books  of  Moses  on  metallic  plates.  (B.) 
The  records  of  the  Jews  from  the  begin- 
ning. That  is,  all  who  spoke  Hebrew  were 
called  Jews,  from  the  beginning.  As  well 
say  that  all  who  spoke  English  were  called 
Yanks  from  the  beginning.  This  would 
take  an  enormous  pile  of  plates,  (c.)  The 
writings  of  all  of  the  prophets  and  writers 
of  Israel  from  the  beginning.  All  the  Old 
Testament  written  before  Zedekiah.  All 


THE  BEADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


100 


the  books  it  mentions  that  were  used  In 
writing  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
All  the  works  of  the  prophets  mentioned 
In  the  Book  of  Mormon,  but  not  mentioned 
in  the  Bible.  Doubtless  many  prophetical 
writings  never  mentioned.  (D.)  Genealogi- 
cal tables  from  Joseph  to  Laban.  All  this 
voluminous  literature,  which  would  have 
made  a  wagon-load  if  on  parchment,  was 
engraved  on  plates  and  not  on  papyrus,  the 
only  material  then  in  use,  and  was  carried 
off  by  five  men,  who  were  dodging  round 
to  save  their  lives,  when  it  must  have  re- 
quired a  caravan  of  teams  to  have  hauled 
it.  This  rigmarole  represents  copies  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  Scriptures  as  being 
common,  well  known,  in  open  use  with  their 
tables  of  genealogy.  Not  a  hundred  years 
before  they  were  almost  unknown  ;  and  in 
the  days  of  Zedekiah's  father  so  little  were 
they  known  that  reading  a  copy  found  by 
accident  revolutionized  the  nation.  This 
enormous  load  of  plates  was  carried  by 
Lehi  in  all  his  journeyings.  Laban's  sword 
was  steel,  when  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that 
the  Israelites  knew  nothing  of  steel  for 
hundreds  of  years  afterwards.  Who  but  as 
ignorant  a  person  as  Rigdon  would  have 
perpetrated  all  these  blunders?  When 
Lehi  saw  that  caravan-load  of  plates,  got- 
ten by  making  the  owner  drunk,  by  murder, 
robbery  and  lying,  he  revelates  and  pro- 
phecies that  these  plates  of  Laban  shall  go 
forth  to  all  nations.  As  not  a  single  plate 
of  Laban  has  ever  gone  forth  to  anybody, 
the  Mormon  God  was  mistaken  when  he 
inspired  Lehi  with  that  prophecy. 

On  page  14  we  have  a  beginning  of  a  se- 
ries of  violations  of  the  most  positive  re- 
quirements of  the  law  of  God.  Manasse- 
hites  begin  offering:  sacrifices  in  flagrant 
violation  of  the  law  of  God.  On  page  16 
the  Mormon  God  commands  Nephi  to  make 
plates  to  receive  the  record  of  the  ministry 
of  his  people.  Although  Lehi  had  brought 
with  them  only  tents  and  provisions,  Nephi 
digs  ore,  smells  it,  casts  plates,  makes  tools 
to  do  all  this,  and  engraves  on  them  in  a 
wilderness  where  a  dozen  persons  are  alone 
with  only  tents  and  provisions.  From  page 
17  to  page  32  Rigdon  makes  Nephi  and  Lehi 
talk  like  preachers  of  the  nineteen  century. 
They  foretell  the  history  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  the 
ministry  of  Jesus,  giving  the  names  of  per- 
sons and  places  with  great  minuteness; 
also  what  they  should  do  and  say.  The 
prophets  of  Israel  never  did  any  such  proph- 
ecy ing.  They  rarely  give  names  of  persons 
or  places,  and  never  foretell  the  exact  lan- 
guage persons  will  use.  Rigdon  makes 
Nephi  and  Lehi  discourse  like  Disciple 
preachers.  They  discuss  all  the  leading 
topics  of  the  gospel  as  Disciple  preachers  do, 
and  discuss  many  themes  of  modern  theol- 
ogy. They  plagiarize  Paul's  parable  of  the 
olive  tiee.  Lehi  declares  he  has  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  name  of  Christ  and  through 
faith  in  Christ  800  years  before  (Jurist  came. 
Rigdon  airs  one  of  his  hobbies  that  he  re- 
tained from  the  Baptists  and  in  which  he 
differed  from  the  Disciples.  John  tells  us 


that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  given  in  that 
way  till  after  Jesus  was  glorified.  Jesus 
declares  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  not  be 

fiven  in  his  name  till  after  his  ascension, 
ut  Lehi  knew  better  than  Paul  and  Jesus. 
Paul  declares  that  these  gospel  themes  were 
mysteries  until  the  apostles  of  Jesus  re- 
vealed them.  Paul  was  mistaken,  for  Rig- 
don  tells  us  that  Lehi  and  Nephi  knew  all 
about  them  600  years  before  Paul  lived. 
Not  only  so,  but  God  revealed  to  Lehi  and 
Nephi  far  more  than  he  ever  did  to  the 
apostles  of  Jesus.  He  revealed  to  them  all 
about  the  Romish  Apostacy,  its  errors  and 
crimes,  the  peculiar  doctrine  of  Luther's 
reformation,  settles  several  questions  of 
modern  theology,  and  always  in  harmony 
with  Rigdon's  ideas. 

One  of  the  most  monstrous  absurdities  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon  is  the  Liahoni,  Lehi's 
brass  director  or  compass.  We  are  told  that 
Lehi  had  given  to  him  by  miracle,  direct 
from  the  workshop  of  the  Mormon  God 
doubtless — a  brass  ball  of  curious  workman- 
ship. The  reader  will  admit  that  it  was  of 
most  curious  workmanship  when  he  hears 
it  described,  "  and  it  was  of  fine  brass,  and 
within  the  ball  were  two  spindles,  and  one 
pointed  out  the  way  we  should  go  in  the 
wilderness."  How  could  they  see  the  two 
spindles  inside  of  a  hollow  biass  globe? 
"One  pointed  the  way  they  should  go." 
Of  what  use  was  the  other?  It  pointed  the 
way  they  should  not  go,  I  suppose.  Page 
36:  "These  spindles  (inside  of  a  brass  globe) 
worked  according  to  the  faith  of  the  pos- 
sessor." If  they  worked  as  the  possessor 
wanted  them  to  point,  of  what  use  were 
they?  How  did  they  see  how  they  pointed 
if  they  were  inside  of  a  brass  globe?  By 
faith  and  the  power  of  God  I  suppose,  as 
Imposter  Joe  saw  the  translation  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  in  the  crown  of  his  old 
hat  as  he  was  peering  into  his  stolen  peep- 
stone;  but  as  the  possessor  knew  they 
pointed  the  direction  he  wanted  them  to 
point,  it  did  not  make  any  odds  whether  he 
saw  them  or  not.  "On  these  spindles  was 
written  " — on  two  fine  spindles  inside  of  a 
brass  globe  where  nobody  could  see — "a 
new  writing."  It  must  have  been  an  ex- 
tensive writing  that  was  all  on  two  fine 
spindles.  "Plain  to  be  read."  Yes  it  must 
have  been  very  plain  on  two  fine  spindles 
and  inside  of  a  brass  globe  where  nobody 
could  see,  "  and  it  gave  us  instructions  con- 
cerning the  ways  of  the  Lord,"  all  on  two 
fine  spindles  and  inside  of  a  brass  globe 
where  nobody  could  see;  "and  it  was  writ- 
ten and  changed  from  time  to  time" — yes 
all  on  two  fine  spindles  or  needles  inside  of 
a  brass  globe  where  nobody  could  see  it. 
Then  Sidney  remarks  with  exceeding  unc- 
tion, "Thus  we  see  that  the  Lord  accom- 
plishes great  things  by  small  means."  Yea, 
verily,  Sidney;  and  when  the  Lord  gave  the 
fulness  of  the  gospel  to  the  world  through 
such  a  lying,  extravagant  ignoramus  as  you, 
in  such  balderdash  as  the  above  he  ac- 
complished the  greatest  work  with  the 
smallest  means  ever  tried. 
Next  Nephi  is  told  to  build  a  ship  and 


110 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


showed  in  a  vision  where  to  find   material. 
Lehi  left  Jerusalem  with  nothing  but  tents 
ami  provisions,  for  he  fled  for  his  life  and  is 
away  in  a  wilderness  and  without  tools.  Ni- 
phi  alone.for  the  rest  opposed  and  ridiculed 
him,  and  there  were  only   15  men  and  wo- 
men in  all,  digs  ore,  builds  furnaces,  forges 
and  machine  shops,  smelts  ore,  casts  im- 
plements, forges,  tools,  "every  tree  to  cut 
down,"     cuts    the   trees   and    builds    the 
ship    "all  his  own  self,"  as  the  boy  boasted 
he  accomplished  his  task.    But  then  Nephi 
tells  us  that  he  did  not  construct  it  after 
the  fashion  of  men.  but  after  a  manner  that 
the  Lord  showed  him.    I  am  so  glad  that 
he  told  us  that,  or  we  might  not  have  be- 
lieved his  story.  I  suppose  the  Lord's  plan 
or  patent  on  ships  don't  require  any  work. 
What  a  pity  that  he  did  not  leave  the  plan, 
by  which  one  man  can,  all  by  his  own  self, 
do  the  work  of  hundreds  and  in  next  to  no 
time.    If  it  be  said  that  this  was  done  by 
miracle,  then  what  need  of  Nephi's  doing 
anything?    Why   was   not    the   ship   fur- 
nished ready  made,  like  Lehi's  wonderful 
brass  compass? 

Lehi  and  his  host  set  sail  in  this  wonder- 
ful ship  made  after  the  Lord's  plan.  Not- 
withstanding this  wonderful  series  of  mir- 
acles that  Nephi  had  worked  before  their 
eyes,  Nephi's  brethren  rebel  and  bind  him, 
and  "lo  and  behold,"  to  use  the  celestial 
language  of  this  Divine  translation  of  Re- 
formed Egyptian,  the  wonderful  brass 
compass  gets  balky  and  refuses  to  work, 
and  tho  rebels  know  not  whither  to  steer 
the  ship,  "inasmuch  that  there  arose  a 
great  storm,  yea,  a  great  and  terrible  tem- 
pest." Awful, Sydney!  perfectly  awful!  Now 
whether  the  tempest  so  great  and  terrible, 
was  caused  by  the  compass  ceasing  to  work, 
or  by  their  not  knowing  which  way  to 
steer,  is  not  plain,  but  the  language  de- 
clares "it  was  one  or  tother."  The  ship  is 
driven  back  ;  now  if  they  did  not  know 
which  way  they  were  going  how  did  they 
know  whether  it  was  driven  back,  or  for- 
ward, or  sideways.  Nephi  is  released  and 
the  compass  points — the  way  they  should 
eo?  No,  the  way  Nephi  wants  it  to  point. 
That  compass  was  as  valuable  as  the  Cali- 
fornia hog  scales.  It  is  said  that  out  there 
they  used  to  lay  a  rail  across  a  log,  put  the 
hog  on  one  end  and  a  pile  of  stones  on  the 
other,  until  they  balanced,  and  then  guess 
at  the  weight  of  the  stones. 

If  it  be  said  that  Nephi  knew  what  course 
they  ought  to  go.  then  of  what  use  was  the 
compass  to  him?  If  the  compass  showed 
him,  how  did  he  know  when  it  ceusctl  to 
work?  And  how  did  it  show  him  when  he 
made  it  point  the  way  that  he  wanted  it  to 
point?  That  compass  was  as  serviceable  to 
Nephi  as  the  man's  snuffers  who  snuffed 
the  candle  with  his  fingers  and  put  the 
snuff  into  the  snuffers.  Kinally  they  reach 
the  land  of  promise,  and  they  find  in  the 
wilderness  both  the  "cow"  and  the  "ox." 
Now  here  is  a  miracle  which  ends  all  cavil 
as  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. Cow  and  ox  cannot  mean  two  differ- 
ent species  of  animals,  and  as  one  is  suffi- 


cient to  designate  the  genus  bos,'  ox  means 
the  male  upon  which  an  operation  has  been 
performed  to  change  him  from  a  bull  into 
an  ox.    Now,  as  man  had  not  been  in  this 
land,  we  have  the  blasphemous  ludicrous 
insinuation  that  the  miraculous  power  of 
the  Almighty  had  been  exerted  to  change 
these  animals  from  bulls  into  oxen  to  pre- 
pare them  for  Nephi's  use.    Now  we  know 
of  a  certainty,  Sidney,  that  the   Book  of 
Mormon  is  of  Divine  origin.     While  thev 
were  in  the  wilderness  before  building  the 
ship  Nephi  was  told  to  make  brass  plates 
One  of  two  things  is  certain,  either  he  had 
to  dig  up  copper  and  zinc,  smelt  them  and 
manufacture  brass  plates,  and  that  with- 
out tools  to  do  it,  for  they  had  fled  from 
Jerusalem  with  nothing  but  tents  and  pro- 
visions, or  he  wrote  on  nothing  or  made  the 
plates  out  of  nothing. 

On  landing  in  America,  the  Mormon  God 
is  so  cai  .ful  about  having  Impostor  Joe  get 
these  plates  that  he  orders  Nephi  10  make 
some  more  plates— gold,  silver  and  copper 
are  mentioned,  but  no  zinc ;  J.ut  Nephi  has 
got  used  to  making  things  out  of  nothing, 
and  it  was  no  trick  at  all  for  him  to  make 
copp-r  without  zinc,  build  furnaces,  work 
mines  and  make  machine  shops  without 
tools,  and  nothing  to  do  it  with. 

On  page  44  it  is  declared  that  the  dark- 
ness at  the  death  of  our  Saviour  shou.M 
cover  the  whole  earth  and  last  three  days. 
The  Bible  says  it  was  only  over  the  land  ia 
which  he  was  crucified,  and  was  only  tbree 
hours  ;  but  hyfalutin  spread-eagle  Sidney 
never  did  things  by  halves  ;  he  had  it  ovei 
the  whole  earth  and  three  whole  days— 
none  of  your  cheap  little  miracles  for  Sid- 
ney ;  they  might  dp  for  the  Bible,  but  they 
wont  answer  for  miracles  in  the  "Fulness 
of  the  Gospel." 

On  page  56,  Lehi,  in  a  sermon,  quotes 
whole  sentences  of  Paul's  writings  more 
than  600  years  before  Paul  wrote  :— "By 
the  law  no  flesh  is  justified.  He  offereth 
himself  a  sacrifice  for  sins  which  layeth 
down  his  life  according  to  the  flesh'and 
taketh  it  up  according  to  the  spirit  that  lie 
may  bring  to  pass  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  being  the  first  to  rise."  Which  shall 
we  believe,  that  an  Israelite  in  the  wilds 
of  America  quoted  Paul's  language,  whole 
sentences,  600  years  before  Paul  was  born, 
or  that  the  Disciple  preacher  Rigdon  inter- 
polated Paul's  language  into  the  romance 
he  stole  from  Hpaulding  when  he  was  re- 
modelling it  to  be  used  as  a  pretended  new 
revelation? 

From  pages  59  to  60  is  a  pretended  proph- 
ecy of  the  Patriarch  Joseph  concerning  Im- 
Eoster  Joe.  "He  is  a  choice  seer."  Verily 
e  was  !  He  shall  bring  forth  the  Nephite 
Word  of  God.  He  will  be  of  the  seed  of 
the  Patriarch  Joseph,  the  Son  qf  Jacob.  His 
name  shall  be  Joseph,  His  father's  name 
shall  be  Joseph.  Now  here  is  a  dilemma. 
The  Nephites  were  all  exterminated ;  the 
only  descendants  of  Lehi  and  Joseph  in 
America  are  the  Lamanites.  They  were 
cursed  with  a  skin  of  blackness  and  became 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLER  DEBATE. 


in 


Indians.  Did  Imposter  Joe  come  from  the 
Nephites  that  have  not  existed  for  1400 
years,  or  from  the  Indians?  Of  what  tribe 
is  he  the  "big  injun?"  Perhaps  he  is  one 
of  the  three  Nephites  that  never  died.  The 
Patriarch  Joseph  prophesied  of  Sidney 
Rigdon  also.  The  Lord  was  to  raise  up  of 
the  fruit  of  the  loins  of  the  Patriarch  Jos- 
eph a  spokesman  for  that  seer.  Again  we 
are  in  trouble.  Did  Sidney  Rigdon  come 
from  the  Nephites  that  have  been  extermi- 
nated 1400  years,  or  is  he  "Bi°r  Injun"  of 
some  tribe  of  Lamanites?  Perhaps  he  is 
one  of  the  Nephites  that  never  died,  and 
Imposter  Joe's  father,  who  was  of  the  seed 
of  Joseph,  was  the  third.  Is  this  prophecy 
or  is  it  a  fraud  of  Sidney  Rigdon? 

Page  62  we  have  a  long  soliloquy  that 
Nephi  engraved  on  the  plates  made  up  of 
patches  of  the  Psalms  and  Jeremiah  badly 
put  together.  Then  Nephi  marches  off  into 
the  wilderness  with  all  of  the  company 
except  two  sinners,  Laman  and  Lemuel, 
and  their  rebellious  seed,  who  remain  be- 
hind and  are  cursed  with  a  skin  of  blackness 
and  became  Lamanites  —  Indians.  Nephi 
and  his  company,  however,  keep  the  law  of 
the  Lord  according  to  the  statutes  of  Moses. 
We  shall  see  how  well  they  do  it.  Now  we 
encounter  a  blunder  that  is  sufficient  to 
brand  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  the  most 
blunderingly  constructed  fraud,  the  most 
transparent  lie  ever  told. 

The  largest  estimate  that  we  can  possibly 
put  on  this  company,  will  not  make  it  more 
than  ten  married  couples — all  of  whom,  ex- 
cept Lehi,  are  married  after  leaving  Jeru- 
salem ;  yet,  already  they  are  divided  into 
two  nations,  and  Nephi  teaches  one  of  these 
mighty  nations  how  to  make  weapons  and 
defend  themselves  against  the  mighty  na- 
tion of  Lamanites,  two  men,  two  women, 
and  their  children  born  during  twenty  years. 
This  mighty  nation  of  Nephites  composed  of 
not  more  than  eight  adults,  four  men  and 
four  women,  and  their  children  born  during 
twenty  years,  erect  in  the  wilderness  of 
America  a  temple  like  unto  the  temple  of 
Solomon  ;  they  work  in  iron  these  eight  men 
and  women,  erect  furnaces,  forges  and 
machine  shops,  work  in  copper  and  gold, 
yes,  and  in  brass  and  steel,  which  Mormon 
inspiration  tells  us  are  native  ores.  The 
origin  of  the  American  Indians  has  puzzled 
all  ethnologists;  but  Sidney  Rigdon  ex- 
planifies  the  whole  matter.  To  prevent  the 
Nephites  from  mixing  with  the  wicked 
Lamanites,  the  Lord  wrought  a  stupendous 
miracle — he  cursed  the  Lamanites  with  a 
skin  of  blackness.  There  now  you  have  a 
great  scientific  problem  solved  by  inspira- 
tion. I  commend  this  wonderful  scientific 
explanation  to  Kelley  as  the  crowning  evi- 
dence of  the  Divine  origin  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 

After  asserting  that  they  kept  the  com- 
mandments oi  God,  according  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  Nephi  coolly  tells  us  that  they 
erected  a  temple  in  America  instead  of  at 
Jerusalem — consecrated  priests  out  of  the 
tribe  of  Manasseh  instead  of  Levi.  And 
these  usurper  priests  offered  sacrifices  in  the 


wilderness  of  America  instead  of  at  Jeru- 
salem in  a  temple  built  in  violation  of  God's 
law.  God  blessed  these  sacrilegious  viola- 
tors of  his  law  far  above  the  most  favorite 
obedient  Israelite  in  Palestine,  revealed  to 
them  the  Gospel,  and  conferred  on  them  its 
blessings  as  fully  as  on  the  most  favored 
apostles  of  Christ  600  years  before  Christ 
came.  God  terribly  punished  Koran,  Dath- 
an  and  Abiram  for  violating  his  law, 
though  they  did  not  violate  is  as  flagrantly 
as  did  these  Nephites,  and  placed  far  above 
all  mankind  these  sacrilegious  Nephites 
who  trampled  nearly  every  precept  under 
foot.  These  Nephites  preached  the  Gospel 
of  Christ  as  clearly  as  Sidney  Rigdon  could 
preach  it,  and  as  he  preached  it ;  and  en- 
joyed every  blessing  of  the  Gospel  as  fully 
as  Rigdon  could,  yet  Nephi  declares  that 
'•  notwithstanding  we  believe  in  Christ,  we 
obey  the  lawofMoses."  What  a  falsehood, 
for  he  tells  us  they  violated  all  its  great 
principles  and  "look  steadfastly  unto  Christ 
until  the  law  be  fulfilled."  The  law  was  to 
prepare  a  way  for  the  knowledge  of  Christ, 
and  then  became  useless  having  fulfilled  its 
purpose.  The  Nephites  obeyed  the  law  for 
600  years  after  they  knew  all  about  the 
Gospel,  and  obeyed  it  when  the  law  was 
useless  to  them,  and  they  could  not  obey  it 
for  they  were  obeying  the  Gospel.  This 
blundering,  unscriptural  introduction  of  the 
Gospel  600  years  before  Christ  who  alone 
was  to  reveal  and  introduce  it,  is  in  flat 
contradiction  of  every  idea  of  God's  word. 
But  Rigdon  was  bound  to  have  his  Nephites 
far  greater  fellows  than  their  brethren  in 
Palestine,  even  if  he  did  contradict  God'a 
word  in  doing  it. 

The  Nephites  who  violate  God's  law  far 
excel  Jeremiah,  Isaiah,  Ezekiel  and  Daniel 
in  prophesying.  They  quote  whole  chap- 
ters of  the  Old  Testament,  whole  paragraphs 
and  sentences  of  the  New,  quoting  tho  ex- 
act language  hundreds  of  years  before  the 
ones  who  uttered  it  lived.  "They  that  are 
filthy  are  filthy  still.  They  shall  go  away 
into  everlasting  punishment.  He  com- 
mandeth  all  men  that  they  must  repent. 
Where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  punish- 
ment, and  where  there  is  no  punishment 
there  is  no  condemnation."  These  are  a 
few  of  scores  of  instances  that  could  be 
cited.  Who  is  such  a  sodden  idiot  as  to  be- 
lieve that  men  in  America  preached  all  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  600  years 
before  they  uttered  it,  in  the  exact  words  in. 
which  they  uttered  it,  rather  than  that 
Sidney  Rigdon  interpolated  these  quota- 
tions into  the  manuscript  he  had  stolen 
from  Spaulding  when  he  was  remodeling 
it  to  make  a  "  big  thing  of  it"  as  a  new 
revelation  ? 

It  is  perhaps  necessary  that  we  repeat 
our  answer  to  our  opponent's  endless  talk 
about  American  antiquities.  We  will  con- 
cede that  if  he  can  prove  that  Joseph  Smith 
gave  to  the  world  a  single  fact  or  truth  re- 
garding American  antiquities  or  archaeology 
or  the  history  of  the  aborigines  of  America 
that  was  not  known  before  his  day,  or  that 
scientific  research  has  discovered  sine?  his 


112 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


day,  that  he  was  inspired  and  the  Book  of 
Mormon  is  of  Divine  orjjin.  Our  opponent 
cannot  ask  more  than  that  of  us.  Will  he 
meet  the  issue  and  prove  that  Joseph  Smith 
has  done  so?  We  have  proved  that  from 
the  days  of  Cortez  and  Pizarro  until  Solo- 
mon Spaulding,  scores  of  writers  had  pub- 
lished every  idea  in  regard  to  American 
antiquities  to  be  found  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon— that  more  than  a  score  of  such  publi- 
cations were  issued  during  the  lifetime  of 
Solomon  Spaulding  in  the  United  States — 
that  Spaulding  was  well  versed  in  these 
theories  and  an  earnest  advocate  of  them — 
that  where  the  works  of  his  day  were  cor- 
rect his  ideas  In  the  Book  of  Mormon  are 
correct — where  they  were  in  error  his  ideas 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  are  erroneous. 

My  opponent  tries  hard  to  make  some- 
thing out  of  the  fact  that  Priest  published 
his  works  after  Spaulding's  death,  and  the 
last  work  after  the  Book  of  Mormon  was 
published.  Unfortunately  for  his  effort,  the 
authorities  that  Priest  quotes  in  both  works 
were  published  before  Spaulding  died  and 
some  of  them  before  Smith  was  born.  I  de- 
fy my  opponent  to  name  a  single  idea  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  in  regard  to  American  an- 
tiquities that  was  not  published  before 
Spaulding  wrote  his  Manuscript  Found  and 
most  of  them  before  Spaulding  was  born. 
They  had  been  published  in  the  United 
States  and  were  the  belief  of  most  preach- 
ers in  New  England  and  the  Middle  States 
when  Spaulding  wrote  his  Manuscript 
Found.  Sir  Walter  Scott  wrote  his  histor- 
ical novels  and  incorporated  into  them  cer- 
tain facts  of  Scotch  antiquities,  archaeology 
and  Scotch  history.  His  novels  agree  with 
the  results  of  scientific  research  into  Scotch 
antiquities  to  a  vastly  greater  extent  than 
the  Book  of  Mormon  agrees  with  the  results 
of  scientific  research  into  American  antiqui- 
ties. Not  only  so  but  they  contain  innumer- 
able facts  of  Scotch  History,  many  accurate 
pictures  of  persons  well  known  in  Scotch 
History  ^ud  innumerable  incidents  in  theiv 


lives.  The  Book  of  Mormon  does  nothing 
of  the  kind:  not  a  historic  incident  or 
character  in  it  can  be  found  outsidt  ot 
the  Book  of  Mormon  except  what  it 
plagiarizes  from  the  Bible.  Now  to  argMe 
as  Mr.  Kelley  does  that  the  Book  of 
Mormon  is  true,  a  veritable  history,  and  ol 
Divine  origin  because  it  harmonizes  with 
certain  ideas  in  regard  to  American  an- 
tiquities that  had  been  current  in  the  Uni- 
ted States  before  its  author  was  born  is  in- 
finitely more  absurd  than  it  would  be  to 
claim  that  all  of  Scott's  historical  novels 
were  true,  veritable  histories,  and  of  Divine 
origin,  for  they  contain  vastly  more  con- 
cerning Scotch  antiquities  that  is  true  than 
the  Book  of  Mormon  contained  concerning 
American  Antiquities;  and  they  contain  al- 
most innumerable  facts  of  Sco'tch  history, 
multitudes  of  real  historic  characters,  ith 
accurate  descriptions  of  them  and  innumer- 
able facts  from  their  lives,  while  the  Book 
of  Mormon  does  not  contain  a  single  hist6r- 
ic  fact  or  character  or  incident.  All  that 
part  of  it  is  pure  fabrication.  Its  history  is 
as  pure  fabrication  as  Gulliver's  travels  or 
Baron  Munchausen's  Tales.  The  truth  is 
s,imply  this  that  as  Scott  incorporated  cer- 
tain facts  of  Scotch  antiquities  that  were 
known  in  his  day  in  to  his  historic  romances 
so  Spaulding  incorporated  into  his  historic 
romance  the  Manuscript  Found  certain 
ideas  in  regard  to  American  antiquities  that 
were  current  in  his  day.  But  Spaulding 
was  not  nearly  as  accurate  as  Scott  and  did 
not  incorporate  into  his  romance  one  hun- 
dredth part  as  much  truth  as  Scott  did.  II 
Spauldiag  was  inspired  and  the  Book  ot 
Mormon  stolen  from  him  a  revelation  'Scott 
was  an  hundred  fold  more  inspired.  Until 
my  opponent  clearly  proves  that  there  is  a 
single  fact  or  truth  in  the  Book  of  Mormon 
thatwafc  not  well  k:>o\vn  before  ita,p«  red 
his  ar'-h-oological  argument  for  its  di  me 
origin  is  colloaal  in  its  impudence  and  ab- 
surdity. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


113 


MR.  KELLEY'S  ELEVENTH    SPEECH. 

4 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:  —  There  are  but  two  more 
evening's  upon  this  question.  [The  original 
agreement  was  for  eight  sessions,  but  after 
this  evening  was  extended  to  ten.]  I  am 
glad  again  of  this  privilege  of  standing  be- 
for«  you  to  advocate  the  divine  sanction 
claimed  for  the  Book  of  Mormon,  because  I 
think  it  is  God's  truth  ;  I  not  only  think  it 
is  true,  but  I  am  confident— I  know  that  it 
is  as  claimed.  I  do  not  give  you  my  per- 
sonal knowledge,  however,  that  you  may 
take  it  for  evidence  in  this  discussion  ;  but 
I  offer  you  the  knowledge  from  God's  word, 
and  if  that  is  in  accordance  with  my  posi- 
tions, I  wish  you  to  take  that. 

This  evening  I  shall  first  take  up  and  con- 
clude my  review  of  the  kind  of  evidence 
Mr.  Braden  has  offered  you  to  prove  his 
case,  and  asked  you  to  rely  upon,  viz: 
through  the  book  of  witness,  (he  says  law- 
yer), Howe. 

Don't  deceive  yourselves,  my  friends,  by 
imagining  that  he  is  a  lawyer.  I  have 
never  known  a  lawyer  yet,  who  would  de- 
liberately publish  for  truth  what  purported 
to  be  extracts  from  the  works  of  a  body  of 
people  in  order  to  bemean  them,  and  to  ac- 
complish this  end  would  publish  garbled, 
wicked  and  lying  statements.  I  have  known 
of  many  low  and  mean  things  resorted  to 
by  priests  and  people  in  order  to  try  to  make 
the  Saiiits  out  monsters  of  crime  and  ini- 
quity, but  not  many  so  brazen  and  impu- 
dent as  to  deliberately  pretend  to  make  a 
quotation  from  their  books  and  then  cor- 
rupt it,  in  order  to  keep  it  from  knocking  in. 
the  head  their  malicious  scheme. 

When  I  concluded  last  evening  I  was 
contrasting  Howe's  spurious  quotations 
with  the  genuine,  on  the  charge  that  he 
was  trying  to  make  out,  that  the  early  au- 
thorities of  the  church  were  after  the  peo- 
ple's property. 

Howe,  as  I  was  before  reading,  pretends 
to  quote:  "Thou  shalt  consecrate  all  thy 
properties,  that  which  thou  hast,  unto  me.'" 
Page  129. 

The  true  reading  Is,  and  I  read  from  the 
first  publication  of  the  Book  of  Covenants, 
here  in  Kirtland,  published  five  years  be- 
fore Mr.  Howe's  work:  "  Thou  shalt  remem- 
ber the  poor  and  consecrate  of  thy  proper- 
ties for  their  support,  that  which  thou  hast 
to  impart  unto  them."  Sec.  13,  par.  8. 

18.  Again,  Howe  says  :  "He  (the  bishop) 
shall  appoint  every  man  a  steward  over  his 
own  property." 

Here  Howe,  to  carry  out  the  evil  purpose 
of  misleading  the  reader,  misquotes  and 
makes  the  bishop  appoint  a  steward  for 
every  man. 

The  record  is :  "  Every  man  shall  be  made 
accountable  unto  me  [Christ],  a  steward 
over  his  own  property." 

In  the  record  a  man  is  made  a  steward 


over  his  own  by  Christ,  and  is  held  respon- 
sible by  Christ  the  head  of  the  Church,  and 
to  no  one  else. 

19.  Again,  Howe:  "He  that  sinneth  and 
repenteth  not  shall  be  cast  out,  and  shall 
not  receive  again  that  which  he  has  conse- 
crated unto  me  ;  for  it  shall  come  to  pass,  I 
will  consecrate  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles 
unto  my  people  which  are  of  the  house  of 
Israel." 

Here  he  wants  to  prove  the  lying  asser- 
tions so  often  made  that  the  Saints  expected 
to  get  other  people's  property.  A  false  as- 
sertion, as  I  have  before  stated. 

Hear  the  record  upon  this  :  '•  He  that  sin- 
neth and  repenteth  not  shall  be  cast  out  of 
the  church,  and  shall  not  receive  again  that 
which  he  has  consecrated  unto  the  poor  and 
needy  of  my  church,  or  in  other  words, 
unto  me  ;  for  as  much  as  ye  do  it  unto  the 
least  of  these  ye  doit  unto  me;  for  I  will 
consecrate  of  the  riches  of  those  who  em- 
brace my  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  unto 
the  poor  of  my  people  who  are  of  the  house 
of  Israel." 

Then  is  there  any  foundation  for  the  as- 
sertion that  has  often  been  thrown  to  the 
world  by  these  perverters  of  our  faith,  that 
we  expected  to  consecrate  of  the  property 
of  the  Gentiles?  It  is  so  represented  by 
those  who  have  perverted  the  faith,  and 
have  garbled  it,  in  order  to  misrepresent  us 
to  the  world. 

The  rule  laid  down  and  the  notice  given 
as  to  getting  back  donations  of  property 
made,  is  precisely  according  to  the  law  of 
the  land,  and  differs  as  to  other  denomina- 
tions in  this:  The  Saints  are  plainly  told 
before  giving  they  cannot  expect  to  get 
their  properties  back  if  they  should  at 
some  futue  time  be  severed  from  the 
church  ;  on  the  ground  that  it  will  have 
likely  been  disposed  of,  for  the  purposes 
for  which  it  was  given,  to  wit:  the  poor  and 
needy.  Thus  every  man  is  put  fully  upon 
his  guard  when  the  gift  is  sought  that  he 
may  not  be  deceived.  Whereas,  in  other 
churches  they  take  the  monies  without 
ever  hinting  that  they  can't  get  them  back 
if  the  donors  are  cast  out  afterwards.  And 
because  they  have  .not  been  given  back 
when  asked  afterwards,  I  have  known,  and 
doubtless  all  of  you  have,  a  large  number 
of  law-suits  against  other  churches  to 
reclaim  such  properties  and  donations,  on 
the  ground  of  bad  faith.  The  custom  of 
the  Saints  is  fairer  and  less  likely  to  deceive 
than  any  other  church  with  which  I  am 
acquainted.  The  people  are  fairly  and  fully 
notified  before  they  give  to  the  church  that 
they  cannot  get  anything  back  that  they 
give  to  the  poor  or  for  the  good  of  the 
church.  But  are  you  notified  oy  anybody 
else  in  that  way?  Notice  is  fairly  given 
that  a  man  shall  account  unto  Him  (Christ) 
and  render  in  the  final  day  of  summons 


114 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


as  to  the  stewardship  over  his  own  prop- 
erty. 

Every  man  was  recognized  &  steward 
over  his  own  property,  to  de  as  he  pleased 
with  it.  But  Mr.  Howe  makes  it  read  the 
bishop  appointed  men  stewards  over  the 
property  of  others.  Mr.  Howe  says,  "  that 
after  the  bishop  received  the  property  of 
the  church,  that  it  cannot  be  taken  from 
the  church."  The  revelation  says,  that 
while  men  are  acting  as  stewards  over  their 
own  property,  and;  shall  see  fit  to  conse- 
crate "of  them"  unto  the  "  poor"  etc.,  and 
the  bishop  shall  receive"  testimonies"  con- 
cerning the  consecration  of  the  properties 
of  the  church,  they  cannot  be  taken  from 
the  church.  The  revelation  leaves  every 
man  free  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  his  prop- 
erties; to  be  his  own  "steward,"  to  give 
to  the  poor  as  ne  may  feel  prompted  ;  but 
when  once  given,  it  cannot  be  withdrawn; 
while  Mr.  Howe  teaches  that  the  bishop 
appointed  men  stewards  over  their  own 
property  and  that  they  were  required  to 
consecrate  "all  of  their  properties,"  etc. 
Do  you  discover  a  disposition  here  to  be 
fair,  or  present  only  facts? 

20.  Continuing  upon  page  130,  Howe  in 
order   to   make   his   case  out  against  the 
Saints,  attacks  with  the  same  wicked  and 
vehement  spirit  Jesus  and  the  early  Chris- 
tians.   He  says;  "  If  Smith  and  all  his  wit- 
nesses were  to  now  come  forward  and  say 
that  his  pretensions  were  a  wicked  decep- 
tion, they  (the  Saints),  would  not  believe  a 
word  of  it — because  [they  claim]  the  Spirit 
had  shown  that  it  was  true."    "  Here  "  he 
says,  "  Is  the  sure  refuge,  the  fast  hold  of 
every  imposter.    This  something  which  is 
the   Spirit   or  Holy  Spirit,  has  been    the 
standing,  unequivocal,  incontrovertible  and 
true  witness  for  at  least  twenty-four  false 
Messiahs,  for  Mohammet  who   is    consid- 
ered the  prince  of  impostors,  and  for  nearly 
fifty  others  who  have  come  with  pretended 
commission  from  heaven." 

Here  is  fairly  shown  the  grand  sequel  of 
Howe's  bitterness  against  the  Saints  :  They 
claim  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  "  (he 
Spirit"  or  "  the  Holy  Spirit;"  and  whoever 
in  the  world's  history  according  to  Howe, 
has  made  such  a  claim,  was  a  deceiver  and 
an  "  imposter."  How  do  you  like  your 
witness  now  who  attacks  the  Savior, 
Christ,  as  vehemently  as  he  does  the  Book 
of  Mormon? 

21.  Again,  says  Howe:    "  His  [Smith's] 
predictions  are  always  found  far  off'  equiv- 
ocal, and  ambiguous,  and  always  relate  to 
some  events  which  everyone  supposes  to  be 
quite  probable."    Then  hegoes  on  to  falsify 
as  to  what  some  of  these  prophecies  were 
as  has  been  proved  was  the  manner  of  his 
other  v.     bling.  But  let  us  examine  Smith's 
statements  and  show  the  roguery  of  the 
assertions : 

1.  That  his  "name  should  be  had  for 
good  and  evil  among  all  nations,  kindreds 
and  tongues ;  or  that  it  should  be  both  good 
and  evil  spoken  of  among  all  people." 

Is  there  anything  ambigious  or  equivocal 
about  that? 


And  again,  page  105,  Book  of  Mormon  ; 
"And  because  my  words  shall  hiss  forth, 
many  of  the  Gentiles  shall  say,  A  Bible,  a 
Bible,  we  have  got  a  Bible  and  there  cannot 
be  any  more  Bible."  What  do  you  see 
equivocal  or  ambiguous  about  this?  The 
Book  of  Mormon  was  published  to  the 
world  under  the  title  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. The  title  of  Bible  is  not  by  it,  nor  by 
its  friends,  ever  been  claimed  for  it ;  neither 
by  them  the  term  used  for  the  plates  from 
which  it  was  translated.  Yet,  the  predic- 
tion is  a  literally  true  one ;  it  is  far  and  near,, 
by  the  enemies  of  the  Saints,  called  a  Bible, 
and  perhaps  there  never  was  more  than  a 
dozen,  if  even  so  many  as  two,  Campbellite 
preachers  in  the  state  of  Ohio,  who  did  not 
thus  in  calling  it  the  Mormon  Bible  con- 
tribute to  the  truth  of  the  prophecy  in  regard 
to  it,  at  the  same  time  they  misrepresented 
the  people  and  denounced  the  whole  thins: 
as  false.  This  prophecy  was  given  or  the 
statement  made  by  Joseph  Smith  two  years 
before  the  book  was  published  and  sent  to 
the  public,  that  when  the  book  should  go 
to  the  world  the  people  would  say.  "A 
Bible."  What  dp  you  see  equivocal  or  am- 
biguous about  this? 

Another  one,  Book  of  Mormon  page  496: 
"And  it  [  the  book]  shall  come  [forth  to  the 
world],  in  a  day  when  the  blood  of  the 
Saints  shall  cry  unto  the  Lord  because  of 
secret  combinations  and  the  works  of  dark- 
ness." Where  is  the  ambiguity  here?  How 
did  Mr.  Smith  know,  or  how  could  he  fore- 
see, except  by  the  illuminating  light  of 
heaven,  that  in  this  land  with  a  constitu- 
tional guarantee  of  religious  freedom,  his 
people  should  be  slain  oy  wicked  hands  ; 
that  men  who  had  warred  for  freedom  in 
the  great  revolution  should  be  hewn  to  the 
ground  by  religious  bigots  without  mercy ; 
that  men,  women  and  innocent  children 
should  be  butchered  without  mercy ;  and 
finally  that  a  state  should  be  permitted  to 
rob  thousands  of  its  citizens,  and  banish 
them  as  exiles,  to  die  upon  other  territories 
through  the  hardships  and  rigors  of  a  fear- 
ful winter.  Aggressors  did  you  say?  Turn 
to  the  official  address  of  Major-General  Clark 
of  the  forces  that  were  sent  to  aid  the  mob 
in  Missouri  when  the  Saints  were  defending 
their  homes  and  their  wives  and  children 
ajjainst  the  efforts  of  the  grandest  set  of 
rascals  the  world  ever  saw,  to  drive  them 
from  the  state,  and  then  say  aggressors  if 
you  dare!  Says  he,  to  as  faithful  and  true 
men  and  women  as  ever  graced  God'»  earth, 
as  good  and  noble  citizens,  and  as  loyally 
patriotic  as  the  Republic  ever  produced,  as 
they  were  then  deprived  of  the  comforts  of 
their  hearth  and  homes:  and  encamped 
upon  the  bleak  prairies  of  north  Missouri: 

"It  now  devolves  upon  you  to  fulfill  the  treaty  that 
you  have  entered  into,  the  leading  items  of  w filch  I 
now  lay  before  you.  The  first  of  these  you  have  already- 
complied  with,  which  is  that  you  deliver  up  your  lead- 
ing men  to  be  tried  according  to  law.  Second,  that 
you  deliver  tip  your  arms— this  ha^  been  attended  to. 
The  third  is  that  you  sign  over  your  properties  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  this  war — this  you  have  also  done. 
Anniher  thing  yet  remains  for  you  t*  comply  with — 
that  i»  that  you  leave  the  State  forthwith ;  and  whatever 
your  fielinir*  concerning  this  affair,  whatever  your 
in  >»'•>»»•*.  ft  ig  nothing  to  me.'' 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


115 


Can  you  point  to  a  grander  outrage  In  all 
the  annals  of  the  world's  history  than  this 
against  a  people?  "Whatever  your  inno- 
cence, it  is  nothing  to  me."  You  shall  not 
even  be  permitted  while  you  are  in  the 
midst  of  the  mobocrats  to  retain  the  arms 
with  which  you  could  defend  yourselves 
from  their  vengeance  of  death.  No,  like 
them  of  old  they  cry  out,  "  Crucify  him  ! 
Crucify  him!  But  release  unto  us  Barrabas," 
the  robber. 

I  could  mention  the  relatives  who  have 
been  in  the  halls  of  Congress  of  men  who 
were  hewn  down  there,  and  as  able  men  as 
there  are  in  America  to-day,  if  I  would 
take  up  my  time  to  do  so.  And  yet,  such 
actions  are  defended  here  by  a  pious-mind- 
ed, high-toned  elder  of  the  Camp  belli  te 
Church.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  begin 
to  see  why  it  was  that  when  they  could  not 
cope  with  Mr.  Smith  and  Rigdon  over  at 
Hiram,  in  argument,  they  "got  rid  of  them" 
by  the  old  way  of  applying  the  argument 
of  "tar  and  geese  feathers." 

But  let  me  tell  you  here  and  now,  that  if 
ever  in  my  life-work  I  shall  meet  with  such 
a  case  of  rapine  and  oppression,  or  unlaw- 
ful vengeance  against  any  people  of  any 
denomination,  or  any  party,  whether  Chris- 
tian or  infidel,  I  shall  not  fail  to  exert  every 
power  within  me  to  protest  against  it ;  and 
it  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  the  faith  of  the 
Saints,  and  ever  has  been,  that  they  should 
be  as  ready  to  stand  for  and  defend  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  others  as  them- 
selves. I  know  how  Col.  Lovejoy  and  an 
associate  was  shot  down  in  the  streets  of 
Alton,  111.,  because  he  dared  to  express  his 
political  opinions  and  stand  for  the  princi- 
ple of  the  freedom  of  the  press  in  this  coun- 
try ;  and  it  was  a  like  evil  and  cowardly 
crew  that  has  been  defended  in  this  con- 
troversy by  the  negative,  who  destroyed 
men  and  women  for  religious  opinions' 
sake.  But  to  return  to  the  examination 
of  Howe,  as  a  witness  (lawyer),  and  the 
Spaulding  romance. 

The  prophecies  he  says  are  so  ambiguous. 
Take  another,  same  page:  "It  shall  come 
to  pass  in  a  day  when  there  shall  be  heard 
of  fires  and  tempests  [tempest  is  a  violent 
wind  as  the  now  familiar  cyclone],  and  va- 
pors of  smoke  in  foreign  lands  [like  to  the 
great  disturbance  of  the  earthquake  last 
fall,  which  the  scientific  say  so  filled  the 
atmosphere  of  the  world  that  it  has  occa- 
sioned the  crimson  red  phenomena  of  the 
sun's  appearance],  and  there  shall  also  be 
heard  of  wars  and  rumors  of  wars,  and 
earthquakes  in  diverse  places  :  yea,  and 
it  shall  come  in  a  day  when  there  shall  be 
great  pollutions  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  ; 
there  shall  be  murders  and  robbings  and 
lyings  and  deceivings,and  whoredoms,  and 
all  manner  of  abominations,  when  there 
shall  be  many  who  will  say,  do  this,  or  do 
that,  and  it  mattereth  not  for  the  Lord 
will  uphold  such  at  the  last  day." 

I  could  in  this  manner  read  to  you  the 
entire  hour,  of  the  certain,  unmistakable 
and  definite  prophecies  in  this  book,  many 
of  which  have  already  had  a  complete  and 


literal  fulfillment.  Why  Is  it,  then,  that 
this  deceiving  work  of  Mr.  Howe  is  sent 
forth  to  the  world?  No  wonder  he  don't 
want  to  put  Mr.  Howe  upon  the  stand  for 
examination.  I  will  ask  him  where  he  got 
his  compilation  from,  and  if  he  did  not 
know  he  was  misrepresenting  the  faith  of 
this  people.  I  have  met  many  men  in  my 
time  who  could  stand  up  and  with  all  the 
powers  of  dissimulation  of  innocence  and 
modesty  tell  to  others  what  I  believed ; 
pretend  to  give  my  belief  from  the  Bible 
and  other  books,  when  there  was  not  a 
shadow  of  truth  in  what  they  were  saying. 
Turning  over  the  book  I  shall  pass  at  thia 
time  tne  terrible  mess  set  out  in  the  letters 
of  Ezra  Booth,  and  notice  the  pretended 
affidavits  of  Peter  Ingersol,  Wm.  Stafford. 
Barton  Stafford,  purporting  to  be  signea 
before  a  judge  of  the  Court  of  Wayne 
county  N.  Y.,  Thomas  P.  Baldwin,  which 
upon  the  face  is  shown  to  be  a  humbug,  for 
there  is  not  one  in  due  form  of  law  hart  the 
•fficer  properly  signed,  and  had  there  been 
such ;  but  upon  dilligent  inquiry  I  failed  to 
find  that  even  the  officer  existed  as  such. 
Having  my  doubts  arroused  as  to  the  mat- 
ter through  an  article  in  the  Chicago  Inter- 
Ocean  a  short  time  ago,  I  wrote  to  the  clerk 
of  the  courts  of  Wayne  county,  N.  Y.,  and 
received  the  following  reply : 

"OFFICE  OF  THE  CLERK  OF  WAYNK  Co.,  N.  Y.,  JOHW 

McGoNiOAL,  CLERK,  LYONS.  N.  Y.,  Feb'y.  1st '84. 

K.  L.   KELLKY,  ESQ.,  Dear  Sir:— Yours  of  the  31st 

Instant  duly  received,  and  In  reply  will  say  that  I  have 

looked  for  the  name  of  Thomas  P.  Baldwin  as  an 

officer  in  the  county  and  fail  to  find  his  name  at  all. 

Looked  back  to  the  time  the  count  v   was  organized. 

(1823).  Very  Respectfully, 

JOHN  MCGONIOAL. 

Again,  not  quite  satifised,  thinking  per- 
haps he  might  be  mistaken,  I  wrote  to  him 
again,  asking  him  who  was  the  County 
Judge  in  1833,  when  these  purported  affida- 
vits of  Mr.  Howe  say  that  they  were  signed 
byThos.  P.  Baldwin  County  Judge.  He 
answers  me  February  7th,  1884: 

"In  reply  to  your  favor  of  the  6th  ult.,  will  say  that 
David  Arne,  Jr.,  was  County  Judge  in  1833." 
Very  Respectfully, 

JOHN  McGowiGAV. 

[Since  the  conclusion  of  the  debate  of 
this  proposion,  the  clerk  has  written  to  Mr. 
Braden  stating  that  he  overlooked  the 
officer  when  examining  the  records  at  my 
request.  And  upon  this  I  claim  nothing 
upon  the  point  that  Baldwin  was  not  a 
Judge. — KELLEY.] 

Do  you  blame  me,  then,  ladies  and  gen- 
tlemen, for  stating  before  you  I  cannot  take 
as  evidence  anything  that  has  passed 
through  such  hands  as  Mr.  Hulburt  and 
Howe,  unless  I  have  the  original  statement 
to  compare,  or  it  can  be  proven  outside  in 
some  way  thai  these  statements  that  he  has 
been  referring  to— but  never  reading  in  full 
to  you — are  unaltered  and  genuine?  Here 
is  where  he  gets  his  John  Spaulding,  Mar- 
tha Spaulding,  Henry  Lake,  John  Miller, 
Aaron  Wright,  Oliver  Smith  and  Nahum 
Howard.  Do  you  want  me  to  swallow 
their  contradictory,  self-accusing,  wholy 
improbable,  malicious  falsehoods,  rather 
than  accept  the  truth  of  God.?  Could  any- 


116 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


thing  pure  and  Immalculate  have  passed 
through  that  sewer  of  filth  and  come  out 
worthy  of  the  palate  of  decent  men  and 
women?  Answer  for  yourselves.  But  I 
proceed  further  with  the  examination.  I 
now  call  your  attention  to  the  letter  of  Mrs. 
Matilda  Davidson,  another  of  his  witnesses, 
to  a  Boston  newspaper  and  published  May, 
1839,  this  a  person  too,  better  informed 
upon  these  matters,  who  had  a  better  oppor- 
tunity to  be  so  than  all  the  others  he  has  re- 
ferred to;  and  she  also  manifests  a  terrible 
feeling  against  the  people  that  I  represent, 
fche  says,  "That  any  sane  person  should 
rank  it  higher  than  any  other  merely  human 
composition  is  a  matter  of  the  greatest 
astonishment,  yet  it  is  received  as  divine 
by  some  who  dwell  in  enlightened  New 
England,  and  even  by  those  who  have  sus- 
tained the  character  of  devoted  "Chris- 
tians." Yes,  and  right  here  I  might  say, 
that  when  I  traveled  through  "enlighten- 
ed New  England"  but  about  four  months 
ajro,  I  found  many  churches  of  the  same  peo- 
ple, and  hundreds  of  good,  faithful,  God- 
fearing and  worshiping  men  and  women  in 
them/all  the  way  from  Providence,  R.  I.,  to 
Addison,  Me.  But  she  continues,  and  I 
read  extracts,  for  the  letter  is  very  long 
and  in  great  part  but  conclusions  which 
are  in  no  sense  evidence,  and  which  would 
not  interest  you:  "It  [the  manuscript] 
claims  to  have  been  written  by  one  of  the 
lost  nations  and  to  have  been  recovered 
from  the  earth."  [Got  out  of  the  cave  on 
Con neaut  Creek],  "and assumed  the  title  of 
*'  Mamuscript  Found."  Assumedit?  How? 
By  writing  its  own  title  on  its  back?  No, 
certainly  not?  Evidently  by  these  parties 
who  we  next  hear  about  whom  Spaulding 
told  that  "  he  got  it  out  of  a  cave  on  Con- 
neaut  Creek."  "The  neighbors  would 
often  inquire  how  Mr.  Spaulding  progressed 
in  deciphering  the  manuscript,  [Translat- 
ing from  the  Latin  as  he  claimed,]  "and 
when  he  had  a  sufficient  portion  prepared 
he  would  inform  them  and  they  would  as- 
semble and  hear  it  read.  He  was  enabled 
from  his  acquaintance  with  the  classics  and 
ancient  history,  to  introduce  many  singular 
names,  which  were  particulorly  noticed  by 
the  people,  and  could  be  easily  recognized 
by  them." 

"Mr.  Spaulding  had  a  brother  John 
Spaulding,  who  repeatedly  heard  the  whole 
of  it  read." — Repeatedly  heard  'he  whole 
of  it  read,  which  abounded  in  "  names  from 
the  classics  and  ancient  history." 

Ah!  yes;  here  it  is  identified  beyond  a 
doubt ;  the  same  old  scrap  of  forty  or  fifty 
pages  that  was  said  to  have  been  found  in 
a  cave,  and  which  she  gave  to  Hulburt,  who 
gave  it  to  Howe,  who  destroyed  it,  lest  it 
destroy  the  affidavits  he  and  Hulburt  had 
gotten  up.  Howe  now  says  Hulburt  wrote 
the  affidavits.  But  she  proceeds : 

"  He,  Mr.  Spaulding,  exhibited  his  man- 
uscript [same  one]  to  Mr.  Patterson,  (at 
Pittsburg,)  who  was  very  much  pleased 
with  it.  and  borrowed  it  for  perusal.  He 
retained  it  for  a  long  time,  and  informed 
Mr.  Spaulding  that  if  he  would  make  out  a 


title  page  and  preface,  he  would  publish  itr 
and  it  might  be  a  source  of  profit.  This  Mr. 
Spaulding  refused  to  do."  Refused  to  make 
out  a  title  page  and  to  have  it  published 
for  profit,  although  Braden's  witnesses 
make  out  that  he  was  to  pay  his  debts  out 
of  this.  Spaulding  did  not  go  back  and 
pay  his  debts,  as  Smith  and  Harris  did  with 
Saunders  in  New  York.  No ;  he  was  a  pious 
Presbyterian  minister.  But  she  continues  : 

"  At  length  the  manuscript  was  returned 
to  its  author,  and  soon  after  we  removed  to 
Amity,  Washington  county.  Pa.,  where  Mr. 
Spauming  deceased  in  1816." 

Notice,  that  she  says  that  they  went  to 
Amity,  Pa.,  where  he  died  in  1816.  Left 
Pittsburg,  then,  before  Sidney  Rigdon  was 
ever  there  according  to  their  own  testi- 
mony. 

"The  manuscript  then  fell  into  my 
hands,"  she  says,  "and  was  carefully  pre- 
served." 

Did  I  not  tell  you  I  would  expose  the 
fraud  by  witnesses  that  were  from  the  other 
side  ?  But  again  : 

"It  has  frequently  been  examined  by  my 
daughter,  Mrs.  McKinstry,  of  Munson, 
Mass,  [the  same  whose  testimony  I  have 
before  introduced  in  this  discussion],  with 
whom  I  now  reside,  and  by  other  friends." 

Again:  "A  woman  preacher  appointed 
a  meeting  there  [at  New  Salem],  and  in  the 
meeting  read  and  repeated  copious  extracts 
from  the  Book  of  Mormon."  "Mr.  John 
Spaulding  was  present.  His  grief  found 
vent  in  a  flood  of  tears,  [Here  is  where  these 
witnesses  bring  the  lachrymose  John  in,] 
and  he  arose  on  the  spot  .and  expressed  to 
the  meeting  his  sorrow  apd  regret  that  the 
writings  of  his  deceased  brother  should  be 
used  for  a  purpose  so  vile  and  shocking. 

Oh,  how  his  feelings  were  hurt ! 

"  The  excitement  in  New  Salem  became 
so  great  that  the  inhabitants  had  a  meet- 
ing and  deputed  Dr.  Philastas  Hulburt,  one 
of  their  number,  [yes,  one  of  their  number, 
citizens  of  Kirtland ;  but  the  same  who  had 
been  banished  from  our  society  for  an  insult 
to  one  of  your  lady  citizens],  "  to  repair  to 
this  place  and  to  obtain  from  me  the  orig- 
inal manuscript  of  Mr.  Spaulding  for  the 
purpose  of  comparing  it  with  the  Mormon 
Bible^  to  satisfy  their  own  minds" — [Re- 
member, they  were  not  satisfied  before] — 
"  and  to  prevent  their  friends  from  embrac- 
ing an  error  so  delusive.  This  was  the  year 
1834.  Dr.  Hulburt  brought  with  him  an  in- 
troduction and  request  for  the  manuscript, 
which  was  signed  by  Messrs.  Henry  Lake, 
Aaron  Wright  and  others. 

I  am  reading  from  her  letter  all  the  time. 
"Henry  Lake,  Aaron  Wright  and  others." 
Who  are  these  Henry  Lake,  Aaron  Wright 
and  others  that  send  a  letter  to  Mrs.  (Spauld- 
ing) Davidson  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
the  manuscript?  The  same  ones  that  he 

Eointed  put  as  the  best  men,  or  among  the 
eat  citizens,  of  Geauga  county, — "old 
Geauga  county!"  Wondered  if  I  would 
say  any  thing  against  them  !  Not  personally 
against  their  character.  I  do  not  assail  men 
in  that  way.  Don't  have  to,  these  men. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


117 


These  are  the  same  parties  whom  he  has 
introduced  as  witnesses  from  Howe. 

"Thus  an  historical  romance,  with  the 
addition  of  a  few  pious  expressions  and 
extracts  from  the  sacred  scriptures  (Ah ! 
Smith  and  Rigdon  did  not  put  them  in 
then,  they  were  in  the  original),  has  been 
construed  into  a  new  Bible  and  palmed  off 
upon  a  company  of  poor  deluded  fanatics 
as  divine.  I  have  given  this  brief  narration 
that  this  work  of  deep  deception  and  wick- 
edness may  be  searched  to  the  foundation, 
and  the  authors  exposed  to  the  contempt 
and  execration  they  so  justly  deserve. 

MATILDA  DAVIDSON." 

My  friends,  are  you  still  wanting  evidence 
as  to  where  the  Manuscript  Found  went? 
Positively  and  certainly  traced  into  the 
ranks  of  its  friends,  and  with  this  in  the 
hand-writing  of  Solomon  Spaulding,  who 
was  dead  before  the  Book  of  Mormon  was 
published,  ten  identical  words  and  express- 
ions of  which,  as  I  have  before  stated,  would 
have  been  sufficient  to  have  identified  it  if 
there  was  any  such  thing  written  as  these 
witnesses  tell  about,  and  yet  they  destroy 
the  manuscript  and  publish  their  lying 
statements;  What  do  they  do?  Send  Hul- 
burt  back  to  tell  Mrs.  Davidson  she  gave 
him  the  wrong  manuscript  and  to  get  the 
rightone?  Oh  no!  she  never  hears  of  them 
until  she  writes  to  know  what  they  did 
with  it.  and  Howe  and  Hulburt  write  back 
word,  •'  It  did  not  read  as  we  expected,  and 
•o  we  did  not  use  it."  Nor  do  they  in  this 
letter  to  her  ask  if  she  did  not  have  another 
manuscript  or  extra  original  leaves  of  the 
"Manuscript  Found"  which  their  witnesses 
had  sworn  to.  Had  the  one  sent  been  an- 
other than  the  true  one,  ten  chances  to  one 
It  would  have  been  similar  in  words, 
phrases,  and  often  sentences,  to  any  other 
Spaulding  ever  wrote,  had  another  been 
written  by  him,  and  a  few  words  in  his 
hand-writing  would  have  fully  tested  the 
matter.  .But  no,  they  destroy  it.  The  only 


first  evidence  under  the  sun  to  detect  the 
fraud,  if  there  was  a  fraud,  and  this  right 
in  the  hands  of  the  lawyer,  Braden's  law- 
yer ! !  A  man  who  will,  after  he  has  all  of 
the  facts  before  him,  believe  such  a  story 
as  this,  must  be  ready  to  gulp  down  the 
most  egregious  tale  that  it  is  possible  for  the 
most  depraved  and  licentious  to  weave  an'd 
concoct  against  an  innocent  and  God-fearing 
people. 

I  might  further  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  aside  from  these  contradictions  by 
Mrs.  (Solomon  Spaulding)  Davidson  of  the 
statements  of  John  and  Martha  Spaulding, 
relatives,  neither  of  their  purported  state- 
ments bear  any  date,  time  or  place  of  mak- 
ing, or  by  whom  made;  that  they  are 
quoted  from  something  else  and  not  the 
original  statement  as  they  show  upon  their 
face,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  neither  make 
John,  Martha  or  any  one  else  responsible 
for  them.  This  is  the  testimony  he  so  pomp- 
ously thrust  in  my  face  the  other  evening; 
the  best  he  has.  How  do  you  like  to  swal- 
low it,  my  friends? 

The  publication  by  Howe  of  these  pur- 
ported statements  and  garbled  extracts 
from  our  works  in  his  History  of  Mormon- 
ism,  shows  that  the  enemies  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  had  nothing  of  truth  to  sustain 
their  wicked  attempt  to  overthrow  it,  or 
they  would  have  used  it.  It  shows,  too, 
that  the  term  falsifier  is  a  tame  enough  word 
to  apply  to  any  one  so  base  as  to  falsify  a 
people's  faith  by  such  great  garbling  and 
trickery,  and  present  it  to  the  world  for 
truth;  and  shows  further  the  kind  of  com- 
pany one  is  liable  to  be  found  in  if  he  essays 
to  peddle  such  stuff  in  order  to  destroy  the 
character  of  honest  men. 

All  of  the  statements  he  has  referred  to 
have  now  been  examined  except  those  ot" 
Mr.  Campbell  and  Adamson  Bentley — this 
Bentley  the  one  Rigdon  referred  to  in  his 
letter  that  I  read  on  last  evening  to  you. 

(Time  expired.) 


118 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S    ELEVENTH    SPEECH. 


GEXTLKMEN  MODERATORS,  TMDIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :- 1    will   notice  first   a   mis- 
etatement  made  by  n»y  opponent  Saturday 
night.     I  said  on  Friday  night,  after  read- 
ing a  series  of  questions,  that  I  would  have 
them  copied  in  type-writing  and  give  them 
to  my  opponent*    I  did  so  before  noon  on 
Saturday,  and  he  had  them  in  his  posses- 
sion eight  or  nine  hours  before  the  debate 
began  on  Saturday  night.  He  has  had  them 
inliis  possession  ever  since,  and  has  them 
now.     Yet  he  said  Saturday  night  that  he 
did  not  have  them.    If  he  claims  that  he 
referred  to  another  portion  of  my  speeches, 
I  remind  him  that  he  has  had  everything 
that  he  has  asked  of  me.  I  think  that  after 
giving  him  my  speeches  to  examine  at  his 
leisure,  and  prepare  himself    to  reply  to 
them — a  thing  no  other  opponent  would 
do — I  deserve  at  least  fair  treatment,  and 
should  not  have  false   statements   made 
about  me.    When  the  reader  reads  in  Kel- 
ley's  speeches  that  I  did  not  give  names, 
and  that  I  gave  persons  testimony  in  my 
own  words ;  and  then  turns  back  and  reads 
the  names  of  the  29  witnesses  and  their  tes- 
timony in  different  type  from  the  rest  of  the 
matter,  and  in  their  own  words  verbatim, 
he  will  see  to  what  desperate  straits  my 
opponent  must  be  driven,   when   he   will 
make  such  reckless  assertions.  His  desper- 
ation can  be  seen  in  his  pettyfogging  and 
misrepresentation. 

He  repeats  the  statement  that  we  have  ex- 
posed several  times,  that  the  manuscript  of 
Spaulding's  Manuscript  Found  was  brought 
to  Howe.  He  says  that  Howe  and  Hul- 
burt  skulked  over  to  Conneaut  and  got  wit- 
nesses to  sign  what  they  wrote.  The  truth 
is,  a  Mormon  preacher  visited  Conneaut 
and  preached  his  first  sermon  and  read  ex- 
tracts from  the  Book  of  Mormon.  John 
Spaulding  and  others  arose  and  exposed 
the  thelt  of  the  Manuscript  Found.  It 
was  in  a  meeting  of  citizens  of  Conneaut 
and  not  in  a  Mormon  church  meeting.  It 
was  a  Mormon  preacher,  and  not  a  woman 
preacher.  That  is  a  misprint  in  Schmucker's 
book; — as  other  books,  that  I  have,  show. 
This  detection  of  the  theft  was  published 
in  the  papers.  Hulburt  heard  of  it.  He 
went  to  Conneaut,  and  such  men  as  Judge 
"Wright,  Lake,  a  leading  business  man, 
and  others  of  the  best  citizens  of  Conneaut 
wrote  out  their  statements  and  gave  them 
to  him.  There  never  was  a  number  of  affi- 
davits more  marked  with  independence 
and  individuality.  Contrast  them  with  the 
joint  statements  of  the  witnesses  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon  written  out  by  Impostor 
Joe  and  signed  by  his  confederates.  Con- 
trast their  courteous  testimony  with  Rig- 
don's  blackguardism,  the  worst  of  which 
Kelley  dared  not  read. 

He  says  they  never  mentioned  the  Roman 
manuscript  until  Hulburt  brought  it  from 


Hartwick.  No,  nor  did  they  mention  Spauld- 
ing's sermons,  and   the 'stories  he  wrote 
for  his  children.    There  was  no  occasion 
for  so  doing  until  it  was  presented  to  them. 
He  assails  Miller's  recollection  of  names. 
Readers  of  the  debate  will  decide  whether 
Miller's  clear,  rational  and  straightforward 
story  is  reasonable  or  not.    I  asked  him 
whether  he  impeached  the  character   of 
witnesses  for  truth  and  veracity,  and  he 
affected  a  holy  horror  of  the  thought,  that 
is  ridiculous,   after  his  assaults  on  Howe 
andHulburt.  He,  with  a  silliness  that  is  id- 
iotic, denies  that  Spaulding  wrote  the  man- 
script  of  the  Manuscript  Found,  in  the  face 
of  the  clear  testimony  of  17  witnesses,  one  of 
whom  is  Rigdon  himself.  He  blunders  over 
Smith's  working  for  Sabine.    He  says  Mrs. 
Spaulding  and  her  daughter  left  Sabine's 
in  1820,  and  that  the  trunk  was  taken  from 
Sabine's  in   1820.    In  1820  Mrs.  Spauldiug 
left  Sabine's,  leaving  her  daughter  with 
the  trunk  in  her  care  at  Sabine's,  and  went 
to  Connecticut.    Some  time  afterwards  she 
married  Mr.  Davidson  in  Pomfret,  Connec- 
ticut.   Some  time  after  this  she  returned 
to  Hartwick,  N.   Y.,   to  live.    Some  time 
after  this  she  sent  for  the  trunk.    It  was 
years  after  1820,  and  it  may  not  have  been 
until  near  the  marriage  of  her  daughter  to 
Dr.  McKinstrey  in   1828,  that  she  sent  for 
the  trunk.     Miss  Spaulding   was  married 
at  her  uncle's  in  1828,  and  afterwards  went 
to  Munson,  Mass.    Mrs.    McKinstrey  posi- 
tively says  that  Smith  worked  for  her  uncle 
while  she  was  there  with  the  trunk  in  her 
care ;  and  that  ends  all  Kelley 's  impudent 
denials. 

He  reads  Rigdon's  denial.  Of  course  a  man 
who  would  steal  would  lie  in  order  to  lie  out 
of  it.  Criminals  are  not  allowed  to  swear 
themselves  clear.  The  same  is  true  of  Pratt 
his  confederate.  Kelley  deliberately  falsifies 
my  statements.  I  did  not  say  that  Smith  stole 
the  manuscript  and  brought  it  to  Rigdon  in 
Ohio.  I  said  Rigdon  stole  the  manuscript 
Spaulding  prepared  for  press,  remodeled  it 
to  suit  his  purpose  and  took  it  to  Smith  in 
New  York.  Then  Smith  informed  Rigdon 
of  the  rest  of  the  manuscripts  in  the  posses- 
sion of  one  who  had  been  Spaulding's  wife, 
and  stole  all  of  them  that  he  could,  to  pre- 
vent detection  of  the  fraud,  and  exposure  of 
the  cheat.  He  says  that  Tucker  did  not  see 
Willard  Chase  before  publishing  his  state- 
ments. Wonderful!  Tucker  used  an  affi- 
davit that  Chase  had  sworn  to,  when  the 
events  were  fresh  in  his  memory,  and  I  quo- 
ted the  same  affidavit,  and  not  from  Tuck- 
er. I  will  attend  to  David  Whitmer's  tes- 
timony in  good  time.  What  bearing  has  his 
attack  on  Howe'8  analysis  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  witnesses  and  other  parts  of 
Howe's  book.  He  reads  an  affidavit  from 
Mrs.  Salisbury,  Joe  Smith's  sister.  In  order 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


to  make  out  that  she  must  have  known  it, 
If  Rigdon  visited  Smith,  she  said  that  Joe 
lived  at  their  father's  from  5827  tol  830,  and 
while  he  was  translating  toe  plates,  and 
translated  them  at  their  father's  Lucv 
Smith,  her  mother,  Joe  Smith,  David  Whit- 
mer,  P  P.  Pratt  and  others  say  that  Joe 
moved  to  Pennsylvania,  over  one  hundred 
miles  away,  in  the  fall  of  1827:  and  Lucy 
Smith  says  that  Joe  took  the  horse  and 
wasron  of  one  who  came  to  move  him  to 
Pennsylvania,  to  get  the  plates  He  went 
right  after  finding  the  plates  and  before 
any  translation,  to  Pennsylvania  Mrs. 
Smith  and  Whitmer  and  Joe  and  others 
say  he  returned  to  New  York  after  wheat 
sowing  in  1823.  He  was  in  Pennsylvania  a 
year.  Whitmer  says  he  returned  to  Whit- 
mer's  father's  and  finished  the  translation. 
Mrs.  Smith  says  he  lived  away  from  home, 
and  that  the  plates  were  shown  to  the  three 
witnesses  away  in  another  neighborhood. 
None  of  the  translating  was  done  at  Joe's 
father's.  Joe  was  not  at  his  father's,  but 
over  one  hundred  miles  away,  for  over  a 
year,  and  was  in  another  neighborhood,  and 
not  at  his  father's  during  the  rest  of  the 
time.  If  Mrs.  Salisbury  Tied,  as  we  have 
proved  she  did,  in  saying  that  Joe  was  at 
their  fathers,  when  he  was  not  there,  she 
would  lie  in  saying  Rigdon  was  not  there, 
when  he  was.  Tucker,  Mrs.  Eaton,  McAu- 
ley,  Chase  and  Saunders  say  that  he  was 
there,  and  some  say  at  least  eighteen 
months  before  the  Book  appeared.  Finally 
we  have  a  long  reading  from  the  SainVs 
Herald  of  June  1881.  In  the  Weekly  News, 
of  Cadilac,  Mich.,  of  April  6th,  1880,  the  Rev. 
C.  C.  Thorn,  of  Manchester,  N.  Y.,  publish- 
ed an  article  asserting  that  old  acquain- 
tances of  Joe  Smith,  in  Manchester,  N.  Y. 
made  these  statements : 

"I  knew  Joe  Smith,  personally  to  some  extent,  saw  him 
'  frequently,  knew  well  his  reputation,  he  was  a  lazy 
'drinking  fellow,  and  loose  in  his  habits  in  e>  ery 
'  way."  Danford  Booth— "Smith's  reputation  was  bad. 
'  I  was  acquainted  with  Oliver  Cowdrey.  He  was  a 
'low  pettifogger,  the  cat's  paw  of  the  Smiths  to  do 
1  their  dirty  work."  Orrin  Reed—"  I  knew  the  Smiths 
'  but  di<i  not  associate  with  them  for  they  were  too 
'  low  to  associate  with.  There  was  no  truth  in  them. 
'  Their  aim  was  to  gel  in  whf-re  they  could  get  prop- 
'erty.  They  broke  up  homes  in  that  way.  Smith 
•  had  no  regular  business.  He  had  frequent  revela- 
•tious."  Wm.  Bryant. 

In  the  spring  of  1881,  one  quiet  Lord's 
day  morning,  several  old  people  in  Man- 
chester were  interviewed  by  a  couple  of 
Danites.  They  did  not  tell  their  names  or 
business  ;  said  it  was  no  matter.  They 
asked  questions  about  the  Smiths,  and 
treated  these  old  people  as  an  impudent 
lawyer  treats  witnesses  he  wants  to  bull- 
doze. Several  of  these  old  people  indig- 
nantly refused  to  talk  to  them  after  they 
had  insulted  them. 

June  1st,  1881,  an  article  appeared  in  the 
Saints'  Herald,  signed  by  one  of  these  Dan- 
ites. It  was  read  to  you  by  the  other  Dan- 
ite  Saturday  night.  It  asserts  that  Mr. 
Thome  did  not  talk  with  some  of  the  par- 
ties he  mentioned  in  his  article,  and  lied 
about  what  others  said.  Mr.  Thome  had 
taken  and  placed  on  file  in  Canandaigua, 


Ontario  Co.,  N.  Y.,  in  the  County  Clerk's 
office,  these  affidavits : 

'  Danford  Booth,  of  the  town  of  Manchester  and 
"countv  of  Ontario,  N.  Y  .being  duly  affirmed,  de- 
'P  >ses  He  hng  read  the  article  in  the  CadilLat  Weekly 

flews  of  April  6th.  1860.  respecting  '  Cowdery  and  the 
"Smith  family,'  over  the  signature  of  C.  C  Tborue. 
"The  intervie'w  therein  mentioned  between  deponent 
''aii'l  Thorne  did  take  place  The  matters  therein  set 
•'forth,  alleged  to  hare  been  stated  by  the  deponent 
"to  Thorne,  were  so  stated  by  deponent  to  Thorne. 

He  has  read  also  in  a  paper  called  the  Saint's  Herald, 
"of  June  1st,  1881,  an  article  purporting  to  give  what 
"was  said  in  an  Interview  between  W.  H.  Kelly  anti 
"another  party  and  the  deponent,  in  which  His  stated 
''that  deponent  informed  said  partiei  that  deponent 
"and  Thorne  never  had  an  interview  as  alleged  by 
"Thorne.  Deponent  declares  that  be  did  not  so  inform 
"said  parties,  and  that  he  has  no  recollection  of  such  ft 
"question  being  asked  him  by  them. 

(Signed)       DANFORD  BOOTH. 

"Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me.  July  1st.  1881, 
(Signed)       N.  K.  COLK,  J.  P. ' 

"Orrln  Heed,  of  the  township  of  Manchester,  countr 
"of  Ontario,  N.  Y.,  being  duly  affirmed,  deposes:  His 
''age  is  77.  He  was  born  in  the  town  of  Farmlngton. 
"about  four  miles  from  what  is  called  'Mormon  Hill.' 
"During  the  last  46  years  he  has  resided  in  the  town  of 
"Manchester,  and  in  the  same  school  district  in  which 
"Joseph  Smith  and  family,  of  Mormon  notoriety,  re- 
"sided,  andtnree-fourths  of  a  mile  from  'Mormon  Hill.' 
"He  has  read  an  article  published  in  the  Cad  llae  Nev>9 
"of  April  6th,  1880,  respecting  'Cowdery  and  the  Smith 
•family,'  over  the  signature  of  C.  C.  Thorne.  The 
'matters  therein  set  forth  and  alleged  to  have  been 
'stated  by  deponent  to  Thorne  were  so  stated  by  depo- 
'nenr.  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  stated  in  said 
'published  article. 

(Signed)       ORRIN  REKD. 

"Affirmed  and  subscribed  before  me  June  29th.  188L 
(Signed)       N.  K.  COLE,  J.  P." 

"Amanda  Reed,  being  duly  affirmed,  deposes :  Phe  !» 
•'the  wife  of  Orrin  Reed.  She  heard  the  conversation 
"tween  her  husband  and  C.  C.  Thorne.  The  statement 
"mHde  in  the  article  published  by  Thorne  in  the  Cadil- 
"lac  New?  of  April  6th.  1880,  respecting  Cowdery  and 
"the  Smith  family,  were  in  fact  so  made.  The  Ian 
"gnage  employed  by  her  husband  w«s  substantially  as 
"th' rein  stated.  (Signed)  AMANDA  REKD." 

Affirmed  and  subscribed  as  above. 

"John  H  Gilbert,  of  the  town  of  Palmyra.  Wayne 
"county,  N.  Y.,  being.duly  sworn,  deposes:  That  in  the 
"article  published  in  the  Saint's  Herald,  at  Piano.  111., 
"June  1st,  1881,  over  the  signature  of  W.  H.  Kelly,  pur- 
"porting  to  give  an  Interview  with  the  deponent  on 
"Mormonism,  the  deponent  Is  grossly  misrepresented 
"In  almost  every  particular.  Words  are  put  in  the 
"month  of  the  deponent  that  he  never  uttered.  The 
"pretended  answers  to  questions  that  the  deponent  did 
"answer,  are  totally  at  variance  with  the  answers  that 
"the  deponent  really  gave.  The  deponent  believes 
"that  such  misrepresentation  was  done  designedly. 

(Signed)       JOHN  H.  CILBKRT." 

"Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  July  12th.  1881. 
"M.  C.  FINLEY,  J.  P." 

The  originals  are  on  file  in  the  Clerk's 
office  in  Canandaigua,  Ontario  County,  New 
York.  I  object  to  Mr.  Kelley's  playing 
pettifogger  and  witness  any  more  in  this 
case.  I  have  impeached  the  witness. 
"When  we  come  to  introduce  witnesses  on 
the  character  of  the  Smiths,  I  shall  not 
allow  the  impeached  witness  to  testify. 
Readers  can  see  how  much  dependence  can 
be  placed  on  his  statements  concerning  what 
Howe  and  Mrs.  McKinstrey  said.  I  could 
read  a  letter  from  Howe,  if  necessary,  deny- 
ing his  statements. 

We  will  now  resume  our  analysis  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  Nephi  follows  Lent, 
quoting  13  chapters  of  Isaiah,  and  he  ex- 
plains its  fulfillment  in  the  ministry  of 
Christ,  as  only  Sidney  Rigdon,  with  the 
New  Testament  open  before  him,  could  do 
it.  He  uses  the  exact  language  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  600  years  before  they 


120 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


uttered  it.  We  have  20  pages  of  Rigdon's 
preaching,  and  in  it  he  rells  us  that  these 
plates  shall  be  hid  up  and  found  by  "an 
unlearned  man,"  and  shown  to  "  three  wit- 
nesses ;  "not  thirteen  remember  as  Mormons 
now  tell  us  and  then  hid  up  again.  Rig- 
don's  Nephites  know  all  about  the  Gospel, 
and  obey  it,  and  still  obey  the  law  of  Moses, 
while  they  are  trampling  it  under  foot,  ana 
are  blessed  of  God,  above  all  that  have  ever 
Jived,  while  violating  his  law ;  and  he  would 
lain  have  us  believe  that  God  revealed  the 
entire  Gospel  to  them,  in  violation  of  every 
principle  of  the  Bible  This  absurd,  un- 
ecriptural,  blundering  fraud  is  the  "Fulness 
of  the  Gospel." 

On  page  118  King  Jacob  tells  us  that  a 
tundreth  part  of  the  wars,  contentions  and 
exploits  of  the  Nephites  could  not  be  en- 
graved on  his  plates.  About  forty  yeari 
before  this,  six  women  left  Jerusalem — but 
one  was  then  married.  Their  posterity,  in 
about  forty  years,  have  divided  into  two 
nations,  and  one  nation  has  built  a  temple 
like  Solomon's,  built  cities,  and  even  the  in- 
spired Jacob  can  not  engrave  one  hundreth 
part  uf  their  exploits  on  his  plates.  Sidney 
never  did  things  by  halves  when  he  mounted 
King  Ahasuerus'  horse. 

On  page  119  King  Jacob,  alias  Sidney, 
preaches,  and  has  a  perfect  knowledge  of 
the  atonement  and  modern  theological  spe- 
culations concerning  it,  and  the  resurrection 
and  the  world  to  come.  The  Apostle  Paul 
declares  that  these  things  were  mysteries, 
hidden  from  even  the  angels,  until  revealed 
to  the  world  by  the  apostles  of  Christ.  Poor 
Paul  did  uot  know  what  the  Lord  had  done 
for  the  ancestors  of  Imposter  Joe,  and 
manuscript-stealing  Sidney  in  the  wilds  of 
America,  600  years  before  his  day  ;  although 
they  habitually  trampled  under  foot  nearly 
every  precept  of  his  law.  King  Jacob,  alias 
Sidney,  now  gives  a  parable  from  the  Mor- 
mon prophet  Zenos.  The  terse,  beautiful 
parables  of  our  Savior  concerning  the  un- 
fruitful tree,  the  husbandman  and  his 
vineyard,  and  Paul's  parable  of  the  olive 
tree,  that  would  cover  not  a  page  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  are  diluted,  caricatured, 
and  mixed  and  spread' over  eight  pages,  as 
only  hifaluting  Sidney  could  doit.  In  his 
awkward  attempts  to  imitate  the  authorized 
version  in  style,  he  begins  thirty  sentences 
on  theseSyages  with  "anditcametopass," 
thirty-one  with  "  Behold."  "  Beheld  "  and 
"  Beholdest  "  occur  nearly  a  score  of  times 
each.  "Wherefore"  and  "  thereof  "  nearly 
as  many  times.  These  cant  words  of  the 
writer  com  pose  a  large  portion  ot  the  parable 
from  Zenos.  An  eccentric,  illiterate  char- 
acter, popularly  called  Lord  Timothy 
Dnxterf  wrote  a  book  and  compelled  the 
printer  to  print  it  exactly  as  he  wrote  it. 
There  was  not  a  capital  letter,  nor  a  mark 
of  punctuation,  nor  any  division  of  matter 
into  paragraphs  or  sentences  in  it.  The 
book  was  eagerly  bought  up  as  a  curiosity. 
In  printing  a  second  edition  Dexter  stated 
in  an  appendix  that  some  had  found  fault 
with  his  book,  because  there  were  no 
capitals  or  punctuation  marks  in  it ;  and  for 


their  benefit  he  added  the  appendix.  Then 
followed  many  pages,  some  covered  with 
capital  letters,  in  all  conceivable  styles,  each 
style  having  several  lines  given  to  it.  Then 
followed  whole  pages  of  commas,  then  serai 
colons,  until  every  conceivable  printers' 
mark  was  printed  in  this  way.  The  author 
remarked  at  the  close  that  each  reader 
might  take  as  many  and  such  capital  letters 
and  punctuation  marks,  as  he  pleased,  and 
place  them  to  suit  himself.  I  would  advise 
the  printers  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  to  print 
several  thousands  of  "  And  it  came  to  pass" 
— "  Behold  "—"Wherefore  "—  "  Therefore  " 
—  "Thereof"  and  other  cant  words,  and  let 
readers  do,  as  Lord  Timothy  Dexter  advised 
his  readers  to  do,  select  such  cant  words  aa 
they  pleased,  and  as  many  as  they  pleased, 
and  place  them  where  they  pleased. 

Let  us  quote  a  sentence  or  two  of  this 
"  Fulness  of  theGospel,"  that  is  to  the  New 
Testament  as  the  New  is  to  the  Old. 

"And  jt  came  to  pass  that  he  pruned  it,  and  digged 
"about  it,  and  nourished  it  according  to  his  word" 
(nourishing  a  tree  according  to  the  word!)  "And  it 
'came  to  pass  that  after  many  days  it  began  to  put 
'•foith  somewhat,  a  tender  little  branches." 

Who  doubts  that  it  took  inspiration  to 
bring  forth  that  sentence  ?  Again, 

"Ye  shall  clear  away  the  branches  which  brings 
'forth  bitter  fruit,  according  to  the  strength  of  the 
•good,  and  the  size  thereof,  and  ye  shall  not  clear  the 
'bad  thereof,  all  at  once,  lest  the  roots  thereof  be  too 
'strong  for  the  graft  thereof,  and  the  graft  thereof 
'perish." 

As  Imposter  Joe  declares  in  his  revela- 
tions- about  stores  and  land  offices  "Lo 
here  is  wisdom."  The  wisdom  of  God  is 
manifest  in  such  stuff  as  that,  doubtless! 
Who  dares  to  doubt  that  it  took  the  highest 
display  of  inspiration  ever  made  among 
men  to  indite  such  twaddle  as  that? 
Seriously  is  it  not  transcendant  blasphemy 
to  even  suggest  that  Jehovoh  inspired  'a 
man  to  steal  the  sublime,  parables  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  the  Great  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  hundreds  of  years  before  they 
were  uttered,  and  to  torture  their  terse  and 
beautiful  language  into  such  balderdash  as 
that,  then  inspired  another  to  engrave  it  on 
plates  which  he  preserved  miraculously, 
and  then  sent  an  angel  to  Imposter  Joe  to 
tell  him  where  the  plates  containing  such 
stuff  were  to  be  found,  and  put  the  climax 
to  this  series  of  miracles,  by  doling  out  to 
Imposter  Joe,  as  he  peeped  through  his 
his  stolen  peep  stone  into  the  crown  of  his 
old  hat,  this  gibberish,  word  by  word,  so 
precious  was  this  "  fulness  of  the  Gospel," 
the  power  of  God  unto  Salvation? 

In  the  next  chapter  Jacob  explains  this 
wonderful  parable  of  the  Mormon  prophet 
Zenos,  in  what  would  be  a  good  Disciple 
exhortation,  if  there  were  more  sense  in  it, 
it,  and  closes  with  this  characteristically 
Rigdonian  sentence  "Finally  Brethren  I 
bid  you  farewell,  until  I  shall  meet  you  be- 
fore the  pleasing  '  bar  of  God,'  which  bar 
striketh  the  wicked  with  awful  dread  and 
'  fear.' "  The  Nephite  Jacob,  500  years 
before  Christ,  knew  all  about  the  English 
legal  idea  or  phrase  "bar."  at  which  a 
criminal  is  arraigned.  He  Knew  all  about 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


121 


the  general  Judgment,  hundreds  of  years 
before  it  was  revealed  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles.  What  a  consistent  metaphor  is 
the  expression  "  the  pleasing  bar  of  God 
"  which  strikes  with  awful  dread  and 
"fear."  King  Ahasuerus'  horse  got  away 
with  Sidney's  good  sense  that  time.  In  the 
next  chapter  we  have  a  debate  between 
Jacob  and  a  Deist,  in  which  the  mediatorship 
of  Christ,  the attonement,  and  kindred  New 
Testament  ideas  and  modern  theological 
speculations,  are  discussed,  very  much 
after  the  manner  they  were,  in  controver- 
sies between  Rigdon  and  a  sceptical  Justice 
of  the  Peace  in  Beaver  county,  Pa.,  to 
which  my  father  listened  about  sixty  years 
ago.  There  is  an  awkward  caricature  of 
the  miracle  of  Paul's  striking  Ely  mas  blind, 
and  there  is  more  talk  about  "  plates"  and 
how  they  were  to  be  kept,  so  that  no 
reader  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  could  have 
any  doubtabout  Impostor  Joe's  plates. 

On  page  137  we  have  another  miracle. 
Mosiah,  a  Nephite,  discourses  to  the  people 
of  Zarahemla — Judahites — who  left  Jerusa- 
lem eleven  years  after  Lehi's  departure 
They  had  lost  all  knowledge  of  God,  and 
were  atheists,  for  they  denied  his  existence, 
and  their  language  had  become  so  changed 
that  they  could  not  understand  Mosiah ,  yet 
these  atheists,  who  could  not  understand 
Mosiah,  rejoiced  exceedingly  when  he  told 
them  what  they  did  not  believe,  and  what 
they  could  not  understand.  Now  we  will 
call  attention  to  one  of  the  most  gigantic  of 
blunders  in  this  bundle  of  blunders,  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  We  are  told,  on  page 
137: 

"  And  It  came  to  pass  that  after  tbe  people  were 
taught  the  language  of  Mosiah  Zarahemla  (their 
chief)  gave  a  genealogy  of  his  fathers  according  to  hla 
memory,  as  they  were  written,  (what  the  fathers  I)  but 
not  on  these  plates.  And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  peo- 
ple of  Zarahemla  (the  chief)  and  Mosiah  (the  chief)  did 
unite  together,  and  Mosiah  (the  chief)  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  their  King  And  it  came  to  pass 
in  the  days  of  Mosiah  there  was  *  large  stone 
brought  unto  him  with  the  engravings  on  it.  and  ha 
did  interpret  the  engravings  by  tbe  gift  and  power  of 
Ood.  And  they  gave  on  account  of  one  Ooriantamui 
and  the  slain  of  his  people  And  Conantamur  was 
discovered  by  the  people  of  Zarahemla  (the  Chief)  and 
he  Dwelled  with  them  (the  subject  of  the  chief 
Zarah«mla)  for  the  space  of  nine  moons." 

If  this  language  means  anything  it  means 
that  Coriantamur  died  among  the  subjects 
of  the  chief  Zarahemla  in  Zarahemla's  time. 
That  was  about  150  years  before  Christ. 
Turn  to  the  Book  of  Ether  and  we  learn 
that  Coriantamur  was  the  last  of  the  Jared- 
ites,  who  were  all  slain  but  Coriantamur  600 
B.  C.  Mormons  may  take  which  horn  of 
the  dilemma  they  please.  If  the  Jaredites 
were  slain  before  Lehi  came  to  America, 
Coriantamur  was  600  years  old  when  he 
came  among  the  subjects  of  King  Zara- 
hemla. Or  the  Jaredites  and  the  Nephites 
inhabited  the  same  country  for  450  years, 
living  together,  knowing  nothing  of  each 
others  existence ! 

King  Benjamin,  alias  Rigdon,  declares  in 
a  sermon,  150  years  before  Christ, 

"  Behold  I  come  to  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings  of 
"great joy.  Behold  the  time  cometh  when  the  Lord 
"shal'  come  down  from  heaven  with  power,  and  shall 
*'  dwell  among  the  children  of  men,  in  a  tabernacle  of 


"  clay,  and  shall  go  forth  amongst  men,  working  mighty 
"miracles,  such  as  healing  the  sick,  raising  the  dead. 

*  causing  the  lame  to  walk,  the  blind  to  receive  their 
'sight,  the  deaf  to  hear;  and  curing  all  manner  of 
'  diseases,  and  shall  cast  out  devils  and  evil  spirits 
"which  dwellin  the  hearts  of  the  children  of  men: 

•  And  he    shall  suffer  temptations  and  hunger,  and 
'  thirst,  and  fatigue  and  pain  of  body  even  more  than 
'  man  can  suffer,  except  to  be  unto  death,  for  behold 
1  blood  cometh  from  every  pore" — (You  see  King  Ben  • 

jainin  knew  all  about  the  physiology  of  the  blood  2000 

years  before  Harvey)  "  BO  great  shall  be  his  anguish 
for  the  sins  and  abominations  of  his  people.  Ami 

"  he  shall  be  called  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
'  father  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  Creator  of  all  things, 
'from  the  beginning,  and  his  mother  shall  be  called 
'Mary,  and  lo  He  cometh  to  his  own  that  salvntion 
'  might  come  to  the  children  of  men,  even  through 
'  faith  in  his  name;  and  even  after  all  this,  they  sh«li 
'consided  Him  a  man,  and  say  that  He  bath  a  devil, 
'  and  shall  scourge  Him,  and  crucify  Him,  and  He  shall 
'  raise  the  third  day  from  the  dead,  and  behold  He 

"  standeth  to  Judge  the  world." 

Did  Isaiah,  who  stands  among  the  proph- 
ets of  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  prophet  of 
the  Messiah,  ever  utter  such  prophecies 
as  these?  Rigdon  interpolated  the  his- 
tory  of  Christ,  as  he  took  it  from  the  New 
Testament,  into Spaulding's  romance,  when 
he  was  remodelling  it  so  that  he  could 
make  a  "big  thing  out  of  it"  as  a  new  rev- 
elation 

Benjamin,  alias  Rigdon,  proceeds.  Re- 
member Benjamin  is  an  Israelite,  living  un- 
der the  law,  150  years  before  the  birth  of 
Jesus. 

"  Salvation  cometh  to  none  except  it  be  through 
"  repentance  and  faith  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  There 
"  shall  be  no  other  name  given  under  heaven,  nor  any 
"  other  means  whereby  salvation  can  come  unto  the 
''children of  men,  only  through  the  name  of  Christ. 
"  Except  they  humble  themselves,  and  become  as  lit. 
"  tie  children,  and  believe  that  salvation  was  and  is 
"  and  is  to  come  (a  Disciple  Idea)  in  and  through  the 
"  atoning  blood  of  Christ  (One  of  Rigdon's  revival 
*'  expressions.)  For  the  natural  man  is  enmity  against 
"  God  and  baa  been  since  the  fall  of  Adam  (Mont 
"modern  theology.)  But  if  he  yields  to  tbe  enticing* 
"  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (one  of  Rigdon's  revival  isms) 
"  and  putteth  off  the  natural  man  and  becometn  a 
"  Saint  through  tbe  atonement  of  Christ  oui  Lord,  and 
"  becometh  as  a  child,  submissive,  humble,  meek. 
"  patient,  full  of  love,  willing  to  submit  to  the  thing* 
M  which  the  Lord  seeth  fit  to  inflict  on  him  even  as  a 
"child  doth  submit  to  bis  father." 

Seriously,  now,  as  persons  of  sense,  shah 
we  believe  that  an  Israelite,  under  the  law 
of  Moses,  preached  in  that  way,  150  years 
before  the  birth  of  Christ?  Or  that  Rigdon 
interpolated  these  sentences  from  tbe  New 
Testament,  these  phrases  from  modern  the- 
ology, these  revivalism?  of  his  own,  into 
the  MS  he  stole  from  Spaulding — when  he 
was  fixing  it  up  to  make  "a  big  thing"  out 
of  it  as  a  new  revelation? 

In  the  sermon  of  a  prophet,  Abinadi, 
which  is  as  much  like  one  of  Rigdon's  ser- 
mons as  the  sermons  of  King  Benjamin , 
Rigdon  completely  "gives  himself  away," 
as  the  slang  expression  has  it.  Page  174. 
"If  Christ  had  not  risen  from  the  dead,  or 
have  broken  the  bonds  of  death  (Shades  of 
Murray,  what  grammar),  that  the  grave 
should  have  no  victory,  and  that  death 
should  have  no  sting,  there  could  have  been 
no  resurrection.  But  there  is  a  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  therefore  the  grave  hath 
no  victory,  and  the  sting  of  death  is  swal- 
lowed up  in  Christ."  Rigdon  forgot  that 
he  was  trying  to  put  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  into  the  mouth  of  an  Israelite  be- 


122 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


lore  it  occurred,  which  demands  the  future 
tense,  and  used  such  language  as  the  real 
speaker,  Kigdon,  should  use,  and  spoke  of 
it  as  a  past  event,  saying,  "had  risen,  "has 
broken."    On   page  277   we  have  doctrine 
taught  that  is  as  clearly  the  work  of  Rigdon 
as  is  his  blackguard  letter  to  the  "Boston 
Journal,"  or  his  glorification  of  King  Ahas- 
uerus'  horse      Immersion  for  the  remission 
of  sins  is    preached  over  100  years  before 
John  the  Baptist,  and  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
more  than  150  years  before  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, just  as  Disciple  preachers  preach  it; 
and  to  clinch  the  matter,  that  it  is  Rigdon, 
immersion  in  the  name  of  Christ  is  for  the 
miraculous  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,   what 
Rigdon  believed  and  brought  from  the  Bap- 
tists, and  the  Disciples  do  not  believe.    Ob- 
serve the  teaching  agrees  with  the  Disci- 
ples as  far  as  Rigdon  agreed  with  them, 
and  disagrees  with  them,  just  where  hedif- 
fered  from  them.    Converts  were  added  to 
the  church,  which  was  completely  organized 
and  in  full  operation  more  than  150  years 
before  Jesus  said,  "I  will  build  my  church," 
proving  that  it  did  not  then  exist.    Here 
again  we  have  an  instance  in  which  Rigdon 
differed  fiom  the  Disciples     On  pages  192, 
193,   194  and   195  we  have  description?  of 
churches   of  Christ,    Christian    teaching — 
Christian    ordinances     Church   discipline, 
all  in  accordance  with  Rigdon's  ideas  of 
what   these  things  should  be      A  wicked 
eon  of  a  preacher  is  converted,  just  as  men 
were  converted  under  Rigdon's  preaching, 


a  regular  miraculous  Baptist  "experience." 
This  was  followed  by  a  regular  series  of 
Rigdonish  revivals, under  preachers  preach- 
ing like  Rigdon,  the  gospel  in  all  of  its  ful- 
ness, according  to  Rigdon's  notions.  On 
page  233  we  have  a  long  extract  from  one 
of  Rigdon's  sermons : 

••  Ye  must  repent  and  be  born  again,  for  the  spirit 

"  faith  (where  except  in  John  III  in  the  exact  wi.rdii 

"  of  Jesus)  if  ye  are  not  born  again  ye  cannot  enter  the 

"kingdom  of  God ;  therefore  c»me  and  be  baptized 

"  unto  repentence.  that  ye  may  be  washed  from  your 

"sins,   that   ye   rc^y  have  faith  on  the  Son  of   Mod, 

'that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  who  is  mighty 

'  to  save  and  toc)r«nse  from  ».ll  unrighteousness:  Yea 

*J  say  unto  you  come  and    fear  not.  lay  to  one  side 

'  every  sin  \vhich  doth  to  easily  beset  you  whirh  doth 

'  bind  you  down  to  de-dructioii,  yea  come  and  go  forth 

'and  show  unto  your  God  that  you  are  willing  to 

'  repent  of  your  sins,  and  enter  into  a  covenant  with 

'Him,  to  keep  His  commai'dments,  and  manifest  it 

unto  Him  this  day,  by  going  down  into  the  waters  of 

baptism,  and  whosoever  doeth  this,  and  kPtpeth  the 

commandments  of  God.    from  this  time  forth,   the 

same  will  remember  that  1  have  sai  *  unto  him  thaf 

he  shall  have  eternal  life  according  to  the  Holy  Spirit 

which  testifietb  in  me. 

Let  me  ask  any  person  of  common  sense 
which  do  you  believe,  that  an  Israelite,  un- 
der the  law  of  Moses,  preached  in  that  way, 
in  the  exact  words  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, more  than  10f>  years  before  Christ?  Or 
has  Rigdon  interpolated  one  of  his  exhor- 
tations into  the  manuscript  he  stole  from 
Spaulding  when  he  was  making  "a  big 
thing,"  in  the  shape  of  a  new  revelation 
out  of  it?  Old  acquaintances  of  Rigdon  in 
this  audience  can  slmost  hear  hifalutin, 
spread  eagle  Sidney  in  one  of  hi«  revival 
exhortations,  as  they  hear  that  language. 


MR    KELLEY'S  TWELFTH    SPEECH- 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  — Before  entering  upon  my 
main  argument  I  will  notice  one  or  two  ob- 
jections that  have  been  made  by  my  oppo- 
nent. 

First,  with  regard  to  the  purported  affida- 
vits th>it  he  read. — Take  and  read  the  state- 
ment showing  the  manner  of  interviewing 
the  witnesses  I  introduced,— when  the  lan- 
guajre  was  taken  down  at  the  time — the 
parties  own  words — and  compare  it  with  the 
manner  of  running  around  and  getting  up 
an  affidavit  when  the  other  fide  is  not  there 
and  you  will  soon  discover  who  has  the 
truth. 

Mr  Braden :  Was  Mr.  Thorn  present 
when  you  mterviewpd  those  parties? 

Mr. 'Kelley:  I  have  not  presented  any 
affidavits,  sir.  I  have  given  their  exact  lan- 
guage taken  at  the  time;  written  in  their 
presence.  That  is  the  manner  of  getting 


this,  and  it  is  so  stated  here.    I  will  read 
from  the  conclusion  of  the  intervit      : 

'•  These  facts  and  interviews  are  present  d    to  the 
'  readers  of  the  Herald  impartially,  just  a»  they  oe- 
"  curred   the  good  and  bad  side  by  side,  and  Hllowing 
"  tor  a  possible  mistake  or  error  from  a  misappreheu- 
"  sion  or  mistake  in  taking  notes,  it  can  be  relied  up- 
"  on  as  the  opinion  and  gossip  had   about  the   Smith 
"family  and  others  among  their  old    neighbors.    It 
"will  be  remembered  that  all  the  parties  interviewed 
"are  unbelievers  in.    and  some  of  them  bitter    ene- 
mies to  the  faith  of  the  Saints;  aiid  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  suppose  that  th>-y  all  t«Id  the  worst  (hey 
knew     So  we  sui  mil  it  to  the  Herald  readers,  without 
'comment,  with   the  expectation  of  sending  each  one 
'  of  the  parties  interviewed  a  copy  when  published." 

When  this  was  published  each  of  the 
parties  was  sent  a  copy  of  the  Herald  with 
the  interview,  and  not  one  from  whose  af- 
fidavit Mr.  Braden  has  read  has  had  the 
manliness  to  write  to  Mr.  Kelley  of  C»Id  wa- 
ter, Michigan,  and  say  that  he  was  misrep- 
resented. But  somebody  can  run  around 
and  get  up  an  affidavit  that  does  not  men- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


12S 


tion  a  single  material  contradiction,  and  a 
couple  of  them  sign  it.  How  many  affida- 
vits did  he  have  from  the  witnesses  I  read 
from  last  night?  From  nobody  but  from 
Major  Gilbert  and  Major  Gilbert  fails  to 
point  out  a  single  thing  in  which  he  is  mis- 
represented. Did  you  not  notice  that?  He 
saye  that  he  was  misrepresented,  but  he 
does  not  state  wherein  he  was  misrepre<-ent- 
ed.  The  fact  is,  Major  Gilbert,  if  he 
made  that  affidavit,  lied,  and  I  know 
that  he  did.  I  am  willing  to  face  him 
In  Palmyra,  or  any  other  place,  and 
say  that  it  is  not  true  because  I  know 
his  language  was  taken  at  the  time.  As 
far  as  the  contradiction  is  concerned  I  do 
not  care  anything  about  it.  I  wantea  it  to 
come  before  this  audience.  I  knew  what 
Gilbert  had  done  when  he  found  he  was 
caught;  and  what  Braden  had  to  bring,  but 
I  wanted  to  show  this  audience  how  easy  it 
was  to  run  around  and  get  affidavits  and 
statements' from  persons  and  prove  things, 
when  you  write  'hem  up  yourself  and  have 
them  signed  The  way  it  started,  this  Mr. 
Thorn,  a  Presbyterian  preacher  was  living 
there  in  the  neighborhood,  and  he  heard 
of  Elder  Kelley's  preaching  at  Cadi  lac, 
Michigan,  and  he  went  to  these  parties  10 
get  their  evidence,  and  he  sent  it  over  to 
Cadilac,  Michigan,  to  publish  It  there  in 
order  to  defeat  Elder  Kelley's  preaching. 

Elder  Kelley,  instead  of  saying  "O!  you're 
another,"  went  directly  to  the  parties  them- 
selves, and  there  upon  the  ground  took 
their  statements,  and  took  them  down  m 
writing  and  sent  their  statements  back  to 
them  afterwards.  Mr  Thorn  never  did  any 
such  thing  with  Mr  Kelley,  nor  with  these 
witnesses,  when  they  said  they  had  made 
other  statements,  as  Mr.  Braden  represents. 
I  leave  it  then,  for  the  honest  and  candid 
thinkers,  and  those  who  love  truth  rather 
than  falsehood,  to  decide  who  has  told  the 
falsehood  and  who  has  told  the  truth,  if 
there  is  any  antagonism  between  tnese 
parties.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  worthy  con- 
tradiction of  W.  H.  Kelley's  report  of  the 
interview,  as  yet.  Major  Gilbert  does  not 
ptate  a  single  thing  wherein  he  has  been 
misrepresented.  Was  it  in  the  statement 
that  he  had  been  trying  for  fifty  years  to 
collect  evidence  against  the  Book  of  Mormon .' 
Was  it  in  that  he  said  he  had  a  way  out  of 
the  difficulty  now  he  thought;  that  he  had 
spoken  to  Baunders  to  testify  that  Rigdoa 
was  there,  and  afterwards  had  written  nim, 
but  Saunderd  had  not  received  it?  Was  it 
in  that  he  is  reported  as  disbelieving  in  the 
Bible?  He  is  the  only  witness  whose  testi- 
mony I  read  before  you,  who  has  said  he 
was  misrepresented.  The  majority  have 
stood  by  their  evidence  as  published  in  the 
interview.  The  others  I  could  say  some- 
thing about,  but  I  will  not  at  this  time. 

Here  I  will    refer  to  one  or  two  other 
matters  and   then  proceed  with  my  argu- 
ment.    First,  wiih  regard  to  the  "woman 
E  readier"    referred  to  in  Mr.  Bpauld'ng's 
jtter,  as  found  in  Smucker's  History      Does 
he  not  know  that  that  is  the  original  sta  te- 
nant from    which   all    the   rest   of   these 


histories  of  Mormonism  go  to  for  their 
material,  and  yet  the  rest  of  them  have 
struck  out  the  word  "woman."  What  right 
had  they  to  dojthat? 

Mr  Braden:  "When  was  Smucker's 
book  copyrighted  ?  " 

Mr.  Kelley  :  "I  do  not  care  when  Smuck- 
er's book  was  copyrighted? 

Mr.  Braden-     "In  1878?" 

Mr.  Kelley;  "1  did  not  get  it  from 
Mr.  Smucker.  I  got  it  from  a  hook  that 
was  published  long  before  Smucker. 
Mackey's  History  of  the  Mormons,  published 
in  England.  I  will  hand  you  the  book  any 
time  you  may  wish  to  examine.  It  is  a  book 
published  long  before  Smucker,  and  it  has 
the  words  'a  woman  preacher;'  and  it  is 
the  oldest  work  that  I  have  seen  that  con- 
tained the  letter.  These  others  have  taken 
it  out  of  the  letter  because  it  killed  them  so 
easily.  You  quoted  from  works  that  had 
deliberately  garbled  the  letter  and  have 
used  such  before  this  audience. 

1  was,  in  a  former  speech,  speaking  of 
these  purported  statements  of  John  and 
Martha  Spaulding,  as  set  out  by  Howe, 
showing  that  they  are  quotations  from 
something  and  not  the  original.  He  does 
not  give  any  date  to  these  statements; — no 
time  or  place,  or  party  by  whom  they  were 
taken.  They  are  put  in  quotations  in  the 
book,  and  they  do  not,  in  any  sense,  amount 
to  statements.  If  they  did,  they  are  so 
contradictory  to  what  Mrs.  Spaulding  her- 
self states,  that  they  could  not  possibly  be 
relied  upon.  This  is  the  testimony  he  so 
triumphantly  threw  into  my  face  the  other 
evening — the  best  he  has.  How  do  you 
like  to  swallow  it  down?  The  publication 
by  Howe  of  these  purported  statemen's, 
and  the  garbled  extracts  from  our  works  in 
his  "History  of  the  Mormons,  or  Mormon- 
ism  Unveiled,"  shows  that  the  enemies  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  had  nothing  of  truth 
to  sustain  their  wicked  attacks  and  over- 
throw it,  or  they  would  have  used  it. 

All  of  the  statements  which  he  has  pro- 
duced have  now  been  examined,  except 
that  of  Mr  Campbell  and  Adamson  Bea1;- 
ley,  the  last  of  these  the  one  whom  Rigdon 
referred  to  in  the  letter  that  I  read  to  you 
last  evening.  I  did  expect  to  refer  to  Mr 
Campbell's  this  evening.  I  guess  I  ehall. 
as  I  am  in  this  connection — also  Mr.  Bent- 
ley's. 

Mr  Campbell,  you  remember,  mentioned 
in  his  statement  that  he  was  not  positiv* 
with  regard  to  this  ;  that  is,  that  he  thought 
that  he  would  like  to  see  what  brother 
Bentley  had  to  say  about  it  before  he  gav» 
his  testimony  It  is  not  independent  evi- 
dence by  either  of  these  parties  This 
Adamson  Bentley  is  the  same  party  wh> 
was  referred  to  by  Sidney  Rigdon ;  who. 
from  the  outset  (18H1)  undertook  to  destroy 
him;  and  Mr  Campbell  says,  as  you  will 
find  by  reading  his  letter,  "that  the  con- 
versation alluded  to  in  Bro.  Bentley  'a  let- 
ter, in  1841.  was  in  my  presence  as  well  as 
in  his.  My  recollection  of  it  led  me,  som» 
two  or  three  years  ago,  to  interrogate  Bro. 
Bentley  concerning  his  recollection  of  it." 


1.24 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Put  T  will  produce  the  article  and  state- 
men*-!  of  tin  •  parlies  in  full,  so  that  all 
n<  .  roper  l.y  .,  dge  them  : — 

iuleunial    Harbinger    for    1844     page 
Sb  - 

Mr.  Campbell  heads  these  articles  as  fol- 
lows : — 

"MISTAKES  TOUCHING  THE  BOOK  OF  MOR- 
MON." 

He  then  publishes  an  article  entitled 
"Mormon" — The  means  by  which  it  stole 
the  '•True  Gospel,"  taken  from  the  Evan- 
gelist, one  of  their  own  papers,  then  edited 
by  Mr.  Scott. 

The  article  is  as  follows  : — 

"It  is  well  kti«wn  that  the  Mormons  preach  the  true 
'  gospel,  and  plead  for  immediate  obedience  to  it  on 
"the  part  of  the  hearers,  as  the  advocate  of  original 
'•('hristinnity.  This  was  not  an  original  measure  of 
"Morrnor.ism  for,  indeed,  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
"sins  is  a  phrase  not  found  in  their  book.  A  few  of 
"their  lenders  took  it  from  Rigdon  at  Euclid,  on  the 
"Western  Reserve,  as  may  be  learned  from  Brother 
"Jor.es  account  of  their  first  visit  10  Kirtland,  pub- 
lished in  a  preceding  volume  of  the  Evangelist,  Rig- 
'don  we  were  perfectly  aware,  had  possessed  him- 
"seil  of  our  analysis,  and  the  pleafor  obedience  raised 
"thereupon,  tut  n«t  choosing  to  rely  on  my  own  re- 
"collection  of  the  means  by  and  the  times  at  which 
"they  were  imparted  to  him,  we  wrote  to  Mr.  Bentley, 
"who  is  his  brother-in-law,  for  the  necessary  informa- 
"lion.  Mr.  Bentley's  letter  shows,  not  only  whence  he 
"received  his  knowledge  of  the  true  gospel,  but  also 
"that,  coward  that  he  was,  he  had  not  the  indepen- 
dence necessary  to  preach  it  in  his  own  vicinity  after 
"he  had  received  it.  Thus  the  knowledge  of  ordering 
"and  pleading  the  elements  of  the  true  gospel  by  that 
'•people,  is  seen  to  arise  near  the  same  time,  and'  from 
"the  same  source,  as  that  of  our  own  reformation.  Mr, 
"Bentley's  letter  is  as  follows  :— 

"  SOLON,  January  22. 1841. 

"  Dear  Brother  Scott.— Your  favor  of  the  7th  of  Decem- 
"her  is  received.  I  returned  from  Philadelphia,  Pa., 
"on  the  10th,  and  the  answer  to  your  acceptable  letter 
"has  been  deferred.  I  was  much  gratified  to  hear  from 
"you  and  family,  but  would  be  much  more  to  see  you 
•"one*1  more  in  the  flesh,  and  talk  over  our  toils  and 
"anxieties  in  the  cause  of  our  blessed  Redeemer. 

"You  request  that  1  should  give  you  all  the  informa- 
"tion  I  am  in  possession  of  respecting  Mormonism.  I 
"know  that  Siduey  Rigdon  told  me  there  was  a  book 
"coming  out  (the  manuscript  of  which  has  been  found 
"engraved  on  gold  plates)  as  much  as  two  years  before 
"the  Mormon  book  made  its  appearance  in  this  coun- 
"try,  or  had  been  heard  of  by  me.  The  same  I  com- 
"municated  to  brother  A.  Campbell.  The  Mormon 
"book  has  nothing  of  the  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
"sins  in  it:  and,  of  course,  at  the  time  Rigdon  pot  Solo- 
"mon  Spaulding's  manuscript  he  did  not  understand 
"the  Scriptures  on  that  subject"  [Of  course  he  did 
not.  He  was  in  the  Campbellite  Church  then  and 
they  never  understood  the  Scriptures  as  they  ought  to 
have  done]  "I  cannot  say  he  learned  it  from  me,  as 
"he  had  been  about  a  week  with  you  in  Nelson  and 
"Windham,  before  he  cf>me  to  my  house.  I,  however, 
"returned  with  him  to  Mentor  He  stated  to  me  that 
"he  did  not  feel  himself  capable  of  introducing  the  sub- 
"jectin  Mentor,  and  would  not  return  without  me  if 
"lie  had  to  stay  two  weeks  with  us  to  induce  me  to  go. 
"This  is  about  all  that  I  can  say.  I  have  no  doubt  hut 
"that  the  account  given  in  Mormonism  Unmaoked 
(this  is  Ho.ve's  book  "Mormonism  Unveiled,"  which 
lie  refers  to.  They  all  go  back  to  that  for  their  infor- 
mation] is  about  the  truth,  ft  was  trot  up  to  deceive 
"the  people  and  obtain  their  property,  and  was  & 
"wicked  contrivance  with  Sidney  Rigdon  and  Joseph 
"Smith,  Jr  May  God  have  mercy  on  the  wicked  men, 
"and  may  thev  repent  of  their  great  wicked  ess!  May 
"the  Lord  bless  you  brother  Scott,  and  family. 
"Yours  most  affectionately. 

"ADAMSON  BENTI.EY.'' 

This  is  a  genuine  Campbelhte  letter,  as  it 
has  all  of  the  ear-marks.  He  wants  to  tell 
«omething,  when  it  is  evident  without  the 
least  comment  that  he  knows  nothing  at 
all.  He  is  Sidney  Rigdon's  brother-in-law, 
and  since  Rigdon  has  left  his  church  wants 


to  give  him  a  dab,  and  he  does  not  care  how 
so  that  he  is  not  caught.  He  had  been 
intimate  with  Rigdon  all  along  during  the 
years  1823,  24,  25,  2G,  27,  28,  29  and  30:  the 
two  working  together,  preaching  together; 
and  Bentley  knew  perfectly  well  that  fJig- 
don  could  have  had  no  more  to  do  in  get- 
ting up  the  Book  of  Mormon  than  he  had; 
and  yet  because  Rigdon  had  united  with 
the  Saints  he  was  mad  and  wanted  to  de- 
stroy him.  He  indorses  Howe's  book  as 
no  doubt  being  "about  the  truth."  This  ia 
the  book  which  I  showed  you  so  perverted, 
misquoted,  garbled,  and  wickedly  falsified 
our  works  iii  order  to  write  down  something 
against  them.  Bentley  drinks  it  down. 
And  the  "  May  the  Lord  bless  you,  brother 
Scott."  That  was  the  spirit  that  marked 
the  career  of  this  man,  at  the  time,  to  a 
dot.  Never  mind  anybody  else.  No  differ- 
ence what  their  claims.  Hound  them  down 
because  they  do  not  follow  us.  But  the 
Lord  bless  us !  me  and  my  wife,  my  son 
John  and  his  wife,  brother  Scott  and  his 
wife,  us  poor,  and  no  more. 

I  reserve  comment  upon  this  statement 
of  Scott's  and  letter  of  Bentley  till  after 
presenting  the  review  of  it,  and  the  evi- 
dence, as  Mr.  Braden  has  termed  it,  of  Mr. 
Campbell.  You  will  observe  at  once  that 
this  letter  of  Bentley's  was  too  brazenly 
absurd  for  Campbell  to  swallow  for  a  mo- 
ment. 

Mr.  Campbell  says : 

"Brethren  Scott  and  Bentley  arc  both  mistaken  us  to 
"the  fact  of  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins  not  b  a  v- 
"ingbeen  found  in  the  Book  of  Mormon;  and  ont  of 
"them  in  the  inference  contained  in  the  note  append- 
"ed  to  Elder  Bentley's  letter  "  [Here,  then,  are  two  mil- 
takes,  at  least,  and  by  both  on  one  of  the  points.) 

"The  conversation  alluded  to  In  Brother  Bentley'i 
"letter  of  1811,  wns  in  my  presence  as  well  as  his." 
[This  is  a  third,  for  Bentley  says,  "I  communicated  it 
to  brother  A  Campbell."!  "and  my  recol  ection  of  it  led 
"me,  some  two  or  three  years  ago  to  interrogate  broth- 
"er  Bentley.  touching  his  recollection  of  it,"  [Here  is 
a  fourth  contradiction  of  brother  Bentley,  for  he  said, 
he 'communicated  to  brother  A.  Campbell.  ]  ''which 
"accorded  with  mine,  except  the  year  in  which  It 
"occurred,  he  placing  it  in  the  year  1827,  and  I  in  the 
"summer  of  1826."  [This  is  the  fifth  contradiction.] 
"Rigdon.  at  the  time  observing  thai  in  th  •  plates  dug 
"up  in  New  York  there  was  an  account,  not  only  of  the 
"Aborigines  of  this  country,  butalso  it  was  stated  that 
"the  Christian  religion  had  been  preached  in  thii 
"cnnntrv  iusf  as  we  were  preachingit  on  the  Western 
"Reserve  " 

Here  is  the  sixth  ;  and  a  very  essential 
difference.  Mr.  Campbell  says"  that  Ilig- 
don  was  telling  them  about  an  account 
that  was  contained  upon  plates  dug 
up  in  New  York,  but  Mr.  Bentley 
puts  it  in  his  letter  "  the  manuscript  of 
which  had  been  found  engraved  on  gold 
plates."  Here  Bentley  is  convicted  of 
deliberately  lying  in  order,  if  possible,  to 
make  a  show  of  connection  between  the 
"  Spaulding  Manuscript,"  which  at  this 
time,  was  in  the  possession  of  Howe,  and 
the  Book  of  Mormon:  and  so  he  wickedly 
puts  the  word  "manuscript"  into  his  letter 
to  mislead. 

Mr.  Campbell  proceeds: — 


.•une  JIKS  iwo  years  according  u>  r.mer  nrmiey,  HIIU 
''three  years  according  to  me  after  snid  conversa< 
'  ;iou  (and  certainly  it  was  not  less  than  two  years),  th» 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


125 


'Inference  of  brother  Scott  touching  the  person  upon 
'Whom  the  theft  was  committed  would  be  plausible  if 
*'it  was  a  fnct  that  biiptism  for  remission  of  sins  is 
44no  part  of  the  Book,  but  something  snper-mldt'd  sinre 
"from  the  practice  in  Ohio  in  the  end  of  1827  and  begin- 
'nlngof  1828;  a  year  or  more  after  Rigdon  made  the 
'aforesaid  statement." 

Mr.  Campbell  proceeded  then  to  make 
quotations  from  the  Book  of  Mormon,  to 
show  that  Messrs.  Scott  and  Bentley  were 
wrong  and  over  conclusive,  quoting  from 
pages  240,  479,  581  and  582  of  the  book,  and 
then  says : — 

"Certainly  this  is  testimony  enough  without  further 
'readings.  The  note  on  the  text  of  brother  Bentley's 
'letter  shows  how  easily  men  may  reason  wrong  from 
'fulse  fa'-ts,  or  from  assumed  premises.  If  the  Editor 
'of  the  Evangelist  were  not  above  the  imputation  of 
'envy,  jealously,  or  vanity,  the  whole  affair  might  be 
'construed  disadvantageous!? ,  but  as  it  is  it  seems  to 
'show  the  necessity  of  a  scrupulous  exami"ation  of 
'the  premises  before  we  presume  on  such  grave  cou- 
'clusions." 

Just  so.  There  are  a  great  many  ear- 
marks visible  to  the  naked  eye  about  this 
alleged  conversation  with  Mr.  Rigdon,  show- 
ing "the  necessity  of  a  scrupulous  exami- 
nation of  the  premises  before  we  presume 
on  such  grave  conclusions."  Mr  Campbell, 
undoubtedly,  made  a  large  number  of  his 
followers  wince  when  he  struck  these  two 
conclusionists  that  little  blow  ;  and  had  he 
on  this  occasion  heeded  the  advice  tendered 
to  others,  another  erroneous,  yet  "grave 
conclusion"  would  not  have  been  arrived 
at. 

The  only  remarkable  thing  about  this 
statement  of  Campbell's  at  all,  is  the  fact 
that  any  man  can  be  so  blind  as  not  to  see 
that  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  in  it 
that  in  the  least  points  to  Sidney  Rigdon 
aa  a  party  having  any  connection  with  the 
origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Suppose 
that  the  memory  of  Mr.  Campbell  to  be 
entirely  correct  in  giving  this  conversation 
at  least  ten  years  after  the  time  fixed  for 
its  occurrence  (and  he  shows  it  is  not,  by 
himself  stating  that  he  first  asked  Mr. 
Beutley  about  it  to  see  if  he  had  it  right), 
and  what  have  we?  Simply  that  Sidney 
Rigdon  stated  in  his  presence  in  the  year 
1826  or  '27  that  there  was  a  claim  made  by 
some  person  in  New  York  State,  not  even 
the  name  of  the  party  then  known  to  him 
it  seems,  that  some  plates  of  gold  had  been 
dug  up  in  that  State,  giving  an  account  of 
the  aborigines  of  this  country,  and  stating 
that  the  Christian  religion  had  been 
preached  in  this  country  just  as  we  (Camp- 
bell, Rigdon,  Scott  and  Bentley)  were 
preaching  it  on  the  Western  "Reserve.  This 
same  claim  (with  the  exception  of  the 
words  "just  as  we  were  doing  upon  the 
Western  Reserve"),  doubtless,  to  this  time 
had  been  repeated  by  more  than  ten  thou- 
sand people  in  the  United  States  ;. for  the 
«laim  was  in  the  public  press  before  this, 
the  announcement  being  made  as  early  as 
1823,  and  the  plates  were  obtained  in  Sep- 
tember, 1827 ;  and  would  it  be  a  strange 
thing  or  proof  of  guilt  for  Sidney  Rigdon 
to  also  talk  about  it  with  others?  Indeed, 
when  you  turn  the  thought  over,  the 
strength  of  the  evidence  is  the  other  way, 
for  had  Rigdon  been  connected  with  this  in 


any  wise  he  would  not  have  spoken  of  it  to 
Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Bentley  But,  says 
one,  why  did  he  use  the  words  "just  as  w» 
were  doing  on  the  Western  Reserve?"  I 
answer,  because  he  did  not  know  anything 
about  it,  for  had  he,  he  could  not  have  so 
spoken  The  record  from  the  plates  did  not 
teach  as  they  were  teaching  on  the  Western 
Reserve,  but  in  nine-tenths  of  all  its  prin- 
ciples taught  the  reverse.  Mr.  Higilon 
could  not  have  made  the  statement  had  he 
been  connected  in  any  manner  in  getting  up 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  All  through,  that 
book  contains  doctrinal  principles  entirely 
different  to  the  teachings  of  Mr  Campbell 
and  these  preachers  of  the  Western  Re- 
serve. 

When  Joseph  Smith  first  announced  that 
the  angel  said  to  him  that  there  was  a 
record  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  this 
continent  written  upon  gold  plates  and  de- 
posited, to  be  brought  forth  in  the  cwn  due 
time  of  the  Lord,  itn mediately  all  the  good 
old  deacons  and  pious  preachers  of  Man- 
chester and  Palmyra,  New  York,  started 
the  story  of  a  "Gold  Bible."  It  was  pub- 
lished over  the  country ;  and  since  Qampbell 
and  Rentley  can  not  agree  within  a  year  of 
the  time  when  they  say  Rigdon  spoke  of  the 
notice,  who  will  dare  to  say  the  conversa- 
tion was  not  in  182«,  or  even  1830,  instead  of 
1826  or  1827.  They  can  not  agree  within  one 
year  of  the  time  themselves  ;  yet,  they  pre- 
tend to  give  such  certain  testimony,  as  they 
would  have  you  believe,  although  your 
salvation  may  be  shadowed  in  the  grand 
hereafter  by  it,  for  having  rejected  the 
truth. 

Persons  who  will  take  such  statements 
for  evidence  do  so  because  they  love  that 
which  appeals  to  their  own  selfishness  and 
evil  desires,  and  which  is  fallacious,  rather 
than  God's*word,  which  says,  "To  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony  ;  if  they  speak  not  ac- 
cording to  this  word  it  is  because  there  is  no 
light  in  them."  And  again;  "He  that 
abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son  "  Well,  but 
Mr.  Braden  says,  "the  devil  may  come 
abiding  in  the  doctrine." 

When  did  you  ever  know  of  him  coming 
and  abiding  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ?  It 
is  the  New  Testament  my  opponent  attacks 
upon  this,  and  not  me.  Are  we  not  to  prac- 
tically rely  upon  John's  statement,  where- 
in he  says-  "  If  any  come  bringing  not 
this  doctrine,  receive  him  not?"  the  con- 
verse of  which  is,  if  any  come  bringing  this 
doctrine,  no  difference  who;  he  may  be  good, 
although  called  bad,  him  receive.  It  is 
founded  upon  the  certain  ground  that  the 
devil  will  not  come  preaching  the  truth,  for 
it  would  destroy  him  ; — it  would  be  contrary 
to  his  own  existence-.  "A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand."  For  this 
reason  Satan  "abode  not  in  the  truth  from 
the  beginning,"  says  Jesus  I  am  surprised 
that  a  professed  minister  of  the  (Jospel 
should  take  the  indefensible  ground  that 
you  must  denounce  a  thing  whether  it  con- 
tains the  doctrine  of  Christ  or  not.  In  ihia 
he  gives  the  entire  Christian  religion  away 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


The  standard  is  "Though  we,  or  an  angel 
from  Heaven  preach  any  other  gospel," 
[anything  other  than  the  truth  or  doctrine 
of  Christ]  "let  him  be  accursed."  But  my 
opponent  would  have  you  give  them  a  little 
cursing  if  they  do  bring  the  Gospel.  My 
friends,  you  need  never  be  afraid  that 
the  Devil  will  come  around  abiding  in 
the  doctrine  of  Christ.  He  might  teach 
one  thing.  He  might  teach  for  instance, 
baptism  by  water  only ;  but  he  will 
never  teach  baptism  by  water  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to  the  believer,  because  God 
alone  can  give  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Devil 
could  not  teach  that,  without  soon  being 
detected  and  exposed  in  the  deception.  Do 
not  understand  me  as  referring  to  my  op- 
ponent or  the  Disciples  as  Satan.  I  was 
only  making  the  argument  by  way  of  an 
illustration.  (Laughter). 

I  have  all  of  his  questions  here :  forty-two 
questions,  1  believe.    He  said  I  would  nev- 
er look  at  or  examine  them  ;  but  I  have  and 
find  no  basis  to  them  whatever,  except  the 
false  statements,  as  I  have  shown,  that  he 
referred  to  at  the  first.    I  need  not  say  to 
you  that  I  do  not  have  to  take  up  my  time 
in  examining  each  one  of  them  separately 
after  having  shown  that  the  basis  of  every- 
one of  them  is  false.  Let  him  get  upon  a  true 
basis  and  argue  the  facts  essential  to  this 
case  if  he  can.    I  think,  perhaps,  he  might 
do  better  had  he  a  different  case.    But,  in 
the  name  of  common  sense  what  has  he  ac- 
complished by  the  forty  questions  present- 
ed ?    Simply  changed  the  form  of  Chestate- 
mentof  what  heclaims  his  witnesses  say  and 
puts  it  interrogatively.  Do  I  have  to  take  up 
this  same  evidence  which  I  have  shown  be- 
fore to  be  entirely  unreliable  and  examined 
it  because  now  he  has  revamped  it  and  put 
iuin  the  shape  of  questions?    You  would 
certainly  call  me  silly  to  so  waste  my  time. 
I  have,  by  showing  the  falsity  of  the  state- 
ments upon  which  his  questions  are  based, 
struck  his  foundation  down,  and  what  care 
I  now  for  the  twists  he  takes  in  the  debris. 
It  he  has  anything  to  offer  in  support  of 
his  foundation,  or  any  new  evidence,  I  shall 
gladly  take  the  time  to  examine  it.    I  have 
already  examined  all  of  his  testimony,  ex- 
cept, possibly,  a  few  of  the  parties  referred 
to  by  Patterson  in  his  pamphlet.    Should  I 
find   the  statements   of  any   others    than 
whom  I  have  examined  I  shall  refer  to  them 
hereafter. 

Now  I  will  proceed  to  the  argument  upon 
the  main  question,  taking  up  first  and  an- 
swering objections  made. 

My  opponent,  on  the  last  evening  of  the 
discussion  said  that  all  the  good  there  was 
In  the  Book  of  Mormon  Smith  and  Rigdon 
etole  from  the  Disciples,  alias  the  Campbel- 
lites,  but  this  is  a  thing  to  be  proven,  if 
true.  I  confess,  viewing  the  matter  from 
»ne  standpoint,  that  it  seems  as  though 
there  might  have  been  some  tampering 
with  the  Campbellite  faith,  some  time,  if 
there  was  ever  any  special  good  in  it,  as  it 
seems  to  be  quite  barren  ot  any  good  thing 
now  ;  but  whether  it  was  stolen  from  them 
by  the  Latter-Day  Saints  remains  .  to  be 
shown. 


He  says:  "It  is  all  balderdash,"  to  ar- 
gue that  "whosoever  abideth  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  he  hath  both  the  Father  and 
the  Son."  Yet  this  is  the  emphatic  state- 
ment of  the  word  of  God.  Remember  it  is 
not  the  language  of  myself,  but  he  calls  it 
balderdash.  He  says  that  bad  men  and 
the  devil  might  come  around  abiding  in  the 
doctrine,  but  they  would  not  have  the  Fath- 
er. Then  the  apostle  must  have  missed  it. 
It  is  not  true  that  bad  men  or  the  devil  ev- 
er did  or  ever  will  abide  in  the  doctrine. 
Of  the  devil  it  is  distinctly  said  "he  abode 
not  in  the  truth."  Abiding  in  the  doctrine 
is  one  rule  given  by  John  to  test  true  teach- 
ers from  false  ones.  The  tru3  ones  abide  in 
the  doctrine ;  the  false  ones  do  not. 

Mr.  Braden  and  his  Disciple  friends  do 
not  abide  in  the  doctrine,  as  I  will  show 
more  particularly  in  discussing  the  next 
proposition;  and  they  also  argue  that  God 
cannot  be  with  them-  mly  in  the  word  ; 
hence  they  have  neither  the  Father,  Son 
nor  Holy  Ghost.  He  is  fighting  the  inspired 
evangelist,  not  me. 

Again,  he  says  when  Mormonism  is  at- 
tacked by  showing  the  bad  character  of 
those  engaged  in  it  that'I  retort  by  dragging 
the  Bible  down  to  the  level  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  attacking  it.  My  opponent  knows 
too  well  the  tendency  of  the  kind  of  argu- 
ment that  is  resorted  to  by  him  to  defame 
and  destroy  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  blast 
the  reputation  of  its  friends ;  but  if  the 
argument  is  good  against  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon and  its  adherents,  as  showing  that 
God  did  not  inspire  or  direct  them,  the  same 
argument  is  good  against  any  other  class  of 
men  making  similar  claims.  All  of  you  can 
see  that  if  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  to  be 
rejected  because  somebody  slandered  the 
character  of  those  who  brought  it  to  light, 
that  the  New  Testament  must  be  under  the 
same  hypothesis;  that  if  it  be  true  that 
God  would  only  select  pure  and  ex-lted 
characters,  such  as  would  at  no  time  of  life 
do  a  wrong  thing,  through  whom  to  reveal 
his  will,  then  pretty  much  all  of  the  Bible 
is  to  be  rejected,  for  Noah,  Abraham,  Moses, 
David,  Solomon,  Peter  and  Paul,  those  with 
whom  God  is  said  to  have  communed,  were 
not  men  of  such  exalted  and  perfect  charac- 
ters. There  was  none  good,  so  far  as  tha* 
term  is  used,  "no,  not  one."  When  my 
opponent  accepts  them  as  mediums  through 
whom  God  revealed  himself,  what  becomes 
of  his  position  taken  here,  that  if  he  can 
show  that  if  some  of  the  leaders  who 
brought  to  light  under  divine  guidance 
tne  Book  of  Mormon  did  things  some  time 
in  their  lives  that  was  not  just  right,  he 
has  proven  the  Book  of  Mormou  false. 

Among  the  first  things  which  Moses  did 
was  to  kill  an  Egyptian  and  hide  him  in 
the  sand  and  then  flee  his  country.  Abra- 
ham, the  father  of  the  faithful,  had  a  con- 
cubine, "Sarah's  ni.-iid."  Noah  got  drunk 
soon  after  he  tourli  i  dry  land,  after  the 
great  flood.  David  had  wives  and  concu- 
bines too  numerous  to  mention;  8olom->M 
the  same,  combined  with  the  sin  of  being 
an  idolater.  Abijah,  after  five  hundred 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


127 


thousand  had  been  slain  in  battle  before 
him,  the  Lord  being  with  him,  waxed 
mighty  and  took  14  wives  and  begat  22  sons 
and  16  daughters.  2  Chron.  13  . 21,  22.  Ho- 
sea  went  and  took  a  woman  of  whoredoms 
and  lived  with  her,  and  then  took  his 
friend's  wife ;  but  still  went  on  prophesy- 
ing, and  my.  friend  claims  to  believe  the 
Erophesy.  Peter  cursed  and  swore,  denied 
is  Lord,  and  yet  who  would  discard  his 
epistles  ?  Saul  assented  to  stoning  Stephen 
to  death,  and  afterwards  he  wa.«  an  apostle 
and  had  many  trials  and  temptations,  and 
yet  the  list  is  not  lull.  All  ol  this  is  m  the 
Bible 

My  opponent  assumes  *o  believe  in  the 
inspiration  of  pretty  much  all  here  men- 
tioned, just  because  their  names  occur  h» 
the  Bible,  not  because  they  did  no  bad 
things  during  their  lives  .  yet  he  endeavors 
to  sink  the  Book  of  Mormon  by  connecting 
something  to  the  lives  of  Joseph  Smith  and 
Sidney  Rigdon  that  is  not  just  right  He 
can  see  that  if  such  arguments  will  destroy 
the  Book  of  Mormon's  claims  to  being  di- 
vinely inspired  it  destroys  that  of  the  Bible 
also,  and  while  he  fats  in  bringing  an 
array  of  accusations  against  Smith  and  Rig- 
don and  others,  which  he  has  failed  to 
prove  , — with  him  it  is  dragging  the  Bible 
(which  he  claims  to  believe  in)  down,  to 
apply  to  it  in  an  argument  the  same  Rind  of 
warfare. 

For  the  f»ak«  of  the  argument.  T  might 
admit  (that  which  is  not  true)  that  Smith. 
Rigdon  et  al  were  as  bad  as  he  repre- 
sents them  to  have  been,  they  would  then 
be  entitled  to  a  respectable  standing  among 
the  very  best  of  those  whom  he  admits  that 
God  revealed  himself  through.  He  has 
only  got  beside  himself.  It  does  not  drag 
the  Bible  down  to  tell  the  truth  about  it.  Et 
must  stand  on  its  merits  just  like  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  I  am  a  believer  in  both.  It  is 
consistency,  truth  and  fairness  that  we 
want. 

He  objects  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  because 
one  of  the  writers  says :  "  If  there  be  faults 
in  it  they  are  the  mistakes  of  men  ;"  claim- 
ing that  if  it  is  inspired  there  should  be  no 
faults.  But  the  Book  of  Mormon  does  not 
claim  to  be  wholly  inspired  any  more  than 
the  Bible  claims  to  be  wholly  inspired.  The 
writer  says  he  writes  according  to  his  knowl  • 
edge  in  the  characters  ; — confessed  that  they 
had  an  imperfect  language  and  that  they 
could  not  write  as  well  as  they  could  speak 
When  done  his  record,  he  asked  that  men 
might  read  the  book  with  chanty  in  their 
hen  ts,  and  not  condemn  it  on  account  of 
finding  some  fault;  and  then  the  writer 
g»  es  on  and  says  :  "  If  there  are  faults  they 
are  the  mistakes  of  men  ;  but  I  know  of  n'o 
faults."  He  then  exhorts  not  to  condemn 
the  things  that  are  of  God.  This  is  the 
honestly  declared  statement  of  the  writer 

As  I  examine  these  objections  it  becomes 
more  and  more  apparent  that  brother  Bra- 
den  has  not  made  any  criticism  on  the  Book 
of  Mormon  yet  that  will  stand  the  test  of 
examination  ;  neither  will  he.  That  you 
may  see  how  much  his  assertions  are  worth, 


just  note  the  fact  that  he  said,  on  the  last 
evening  of  the  discussion,  that  the  word 
"Jew"  was  not  known  to  Bible  writers 
until  after  the  Jewish  captivity.  In  II 
Kings,  xvi.  6,  the  King  of  "  Syria  drove  the 
Jews  from  Elath."  This  was  about  742years 
before  Christ,  and  120  years  before  the  Jew- 
ish captivity.  The  word  Jew  is  found  in 
Jeremiah  xxxiv.  9,  590  years  before  Christ, 
and  long  before  the  return  of  the  Jews  from 
their  captivity.  The  word  was  in  use  710 
y  ;ars  before  Christ,  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah, 
King  of  Judah,  II  Chron.,  chap,  xxxii.  18. 
1 1  was  applied  to  all  Israelites  580  years  be- 
fore Christ.  Dan.  viii.  12. 

Again,  he  asserts  as  an  objection  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon  that  it  speaks  of  st«el  and 
its  uses,  and  that  the  Jews  knew  nothing 
of  steel ,  that  it  was  not  known  in  old  Bible 
times;  only  mentioned,  he  says,  once,  and 
that  in  the  Book  of  Job  That  should  have 
been  enough  to  remove  his  objections  .  but 
he  is  keen  to  find  fault,  and  "  a  drowning 
man  will  catch  at  straws  "  In  2  Saml 
22*35,  it  is  stated,  "He  teacheth  my  hands 
to  war ,  so  that  a  bow  of  steel  is  broken  in 
my  arms.'  This  was  only  1018  years  before 
the  time  of  Christ.  The  same  thing  occurs 
in  Psalms  of  David,  chap.  18,  v  34,  as  well 
as  in  Job  20  24 ;  and  this  is  said  to  be  the 
oldest  book  in  the  Bible 

My  opponent  does  far  better  with  hli 
stories  than  he  does  in  dealing  with  things 
that  can  be  tested  right  here  in  this  discus- 
sion If  he  wishes  to  succeed  he  had  better 
go  on  telling  his  yarns,  and  not  undertake 
to  handle  edged  tools. 

Again,  he  says,  the  Israelites  did  not! 
make  and  write  on  plates  which  would  have ' 
been  the  case  if  Lehi  could  bring  plates 
from  Jerusalem.  Very  true ,  now  let  us 
see.  In  I  Kings,  7  30  we  are  informed  that 
they  made  "  Plates  of  brass."  These 
plates  were  used  in  building  the  temple, 
and  the  36th  verse  says  :  "Graved  [engrav- 
ed] cherubims,  lioas  and  palm  trees"  on 
them.  In  Exodus,  39: 3  we  read:  "They 
did  beat  the  gold  into  thin  plates."  They 
wrote,  or  engraved,  also  on  gold  plates. 
"  And  thou  shalt  make  a  plate  of  pure  gold 
and  grave  upon  it  like  the  gravings  of  a  sig- 
net, Holiness  to  the  Lord!"  That  which 
was  the  most  highly  prized,  beautiful  and 
sacred  they  wrote  on  gold  plates.  Ex  28: 
37,  Ex,  39:30.  They  made  a  plate  of  pure 
gold,  and  wrote  upon  it  a  writing  like  the 
engraving  of  a  signet,  Holiness  to  the 
Lord  "  The  Israelites  not  only  engraved 
upon  gold  and  brass  plates,  but  also  upon 
stones  of  various  kinds,  see  Ex.28  9.  11, 
21.  and  30*  6,  19  But  working  in  brass  and 
iron  commenced  with  Tubal-cain.  Gen. 
4  22,  and  the  art  of  engraving  on  hard 
substances  was  known  1700 years  oefore 
Christian  era.  See  Gen.  38;  18,  25. 

So  much  for  his  objection  to  the  Book  of 
Mormon  because  they  wrote  on  gold  plates 
and  brass  plates. 

Again,  he  ridicules  the  Idea  of  God  giv- 
ing Lehi  the  "  Liahona,"  or  compass  ;  and 
says  that  "one  spinnel  pointed  the  way 
they  should  go ;  the  other  the  way  they 


128 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


should  not  go,"  of  course;  but  the  record 
eays  nothing  about  the  way  they  should 
not  go.  He  thinks  they  could  not  read  a 
writing  on  the  spindle  in  a  brass  globe,  but 
the  writing  was  on  the  spindle  and  they 
could  see  the  spindle.  This  is  too  marvelous 
a  story  for  my  opponent  to  believe  ;  but  he 
can  swallow  Jonah  and  the  whale  and  then 
be  ready  for  more  like  it.  He  can  believe 
that  God  wrote  the  tables  of  the  law  and 
went  before  the  Israelites  and  fed  them  on 
manna  for  40  years  ;  when  they  got  hungry 
for  fresh  meat  God  would  send  a  shower  of 
quails,  and  when  they  were  thirsty  the 
water  would  roll  out  of  a  dry  rock  to  quench 
their  thirst.  He  can  gaze  with  delight  and 
the  utmost  rapture  at  the  spring  of  water 
as  it  gushed  from  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass 
in  Samson's  hand,  and  drink  them  all  in 
and  then  think  them  but  common  things, 
and  still  be  ready  for  more  like  it.  But 
when  the  Book  of  Mormon  claims  that  God 
guided  the  Jaredites  and  the  Nephites  by 
miracle  it  is  not  to  be  believed  ;  it  is  all  one 
of  Joe  Smith's  fables  gotten  up  to  deceive. 
Whether  Smith  stole  this  part  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  (the  big  stories),  from  the 
Campbellites  or  not,  remains  to  be  proven 
along  with  the  rest.  Now  there  is  not  as 
astounding  and  miraculous  things  stated  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon  as  there  is  in  the 
Biblo;  yet,  my  opponent  objects  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon  because  it  states  that  God 
by  miracle  aided  the  people  who  came  to 
this  continent,  notwithstanding  the  huge 
miraculous  accounts  that  are  to  be  found  in 
t"fie  book  which  he  admits  to  be  true. 

Nephi  does  not  say,  as  asserted  by  my 
•pponent,  that  he  made  plates  in  the  wilder- 
ness where  there  was  no  ore  ;  but  that  after 
they  had  arrived  at  the  promised  land  they 
found  "  ore  of  gold,"  aud  here  lie  made  his 


first  plates.  So  much  for  his  statement 
that  they  made  plates  out  of  nothing. 

He  objects  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  because 
the  word  church  is  used  in  it  before  the 
Christian  era.  Church  means  an  assembly 
of  worshippers.  The  Book  of  Mormon  is  a 
translation  into  English.  No  matter  what 
an  assembly  of  a  like  kind  may  have  been 
called  in  old  time  it  would  be  called  a 
a  church  when  translated  into  English. 
Besides  Stephens  says,  Acts,  7: 38  that  t*  >re 
w.is  a  "Church  in  the  wilderness,"  iir  \ie 
time  of  Moses.  He  objects  to  the  Boa  of 
Mormon  because  it  says  the  gospel  is 
preached  on  this  continent  before  the  tiue 
of  Christ.  It  was  preached  to  Abraham, 
Gal.  3  8,  and  to  Moses  and  the  Israelites, 
Heb.  4:  2.  He  objects  to  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon because  the  Nephites  professed  to  have 
the  Holy  Ghost  before  Pentecost  Day  ;  and 
said  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  given  until  af- 
ter Jesus  was  glorified.  Peter  says  "Proph- 
esy came  not  in  old  times  by  the  will  of 
man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  2  Peter, 
2:21.  This  Holy  Ghost  inspired  all  of 
the  prophets  and  saints  from  Adam  to 
Christ ;  why  not  the  Nephites?  After 
Christ  commenced  his  ministry  on  earth, 
his  disciples  were  not  to  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost  until  after  the  ascension.  He  says  : 
"If  I  go  not  away  the  Comforter  will  not 
come." 

While  he  was  in  the  world  he  was  the  es- 
pecial light  of  the  people.  That  is  the  way  it 
was,  Mr.  Braden.  There  is  noclash  herewith 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  The  Holy  Ghost  and 
the  gospel  were  enjoyed  before  the  Savior's 
ministry  on  earth,  and  they  kept  the  law  of 
Moses,  also. 

(Time  expired.) 


MR    BRADEN'S    TWELFTH    SPEECH. 


GENTI/EMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GEN-!  -M.;N. — On  page  234  we  have  a  de- 
scription of  many  kinds  of  coin,  and  some 
of  them  were  very  large.  Why  have  we 
never  found  any  of  these  coins  in  America? 
In  ruins  in  the  old  world  millions  of  coins 
have  been  found.  Why  not  on  this  con- 
tinent V 

On  page  235  a  Nephite  preacher  solves  all 
the  disputes  of  modern  theon  gy  concerning 
the  resurrection,  and  100 years '.ei«Mt?\  hrist. 
Men  may  differ  in  their  interpretation  of 
of  the  general  truths  taught  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  but  there  can  be  no  dispute 
over  the  minute,  dogmatical  revelations  of 
the  Nephite  prophet,  who,  stransre  to  say, 


gives  by  inspiration  the  exact  ideas  of  Rig- 
don  1800  years  before  Rigdon  lived  to 
preach  them. 

"  N'OW  there  is  a  death  which  is  called  a  temporul 
'  dewb  and  the  death  of  Christ  shall  loose  all  bonds 
•of  this  temporal  dvath,  that  all  shall  be  raised  from 
•this  temporal  death.  The  sp  rit  and  the  body  shall 
•  b<-  re  united  again  in  its  perfect  form,  both  limb  and 
•joint  shall  be  restored  t-uts  propei  form,  even  as  they 
'  now  are  at  this  time,  and  shall  be  brongh  to  stand 
'  before  the  bar  of  God,  knowing  as  we  now  know." 

There,  that  settles  the  vexed  question  in 
favor  of  a  literal  resurrection.  God  inspired 
the  Nephite  Amalek,  long  before  the  birth 
of  Christ,  to  explain  the  ressurrectipn  and 
temporal  death  and  spiritual  death,  just  as 
Rigdon  believed. 
On  page  238  a  soul-sleeper  is  silenced  with 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Rigdon's  ideas  on  eschatology.  On  page 
289  we  have  the  modern  term  '-Dissenter" 
—a  word  never  used  until  men  dissented 
from  the  creed  and  practice  of  the  church 
of  .England.  On  the  page  we  have  a  de- 
scription of  Episcopalians,  and  the  Lord's 
day  is  mentioned.  This  is  followed  by 
pages  of  preaching  in  which  nearly  every 
idea  of  modern  theology,  even  the  most 
abstruse,  is  discussed  and  settled  in  a 
manner  that  utterly  eclipses  the  general 
teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles;  and 
what  is  more  miraculous,  these  Nephites 
always  agree  exactly  with  Rigdon's  theology 
In  their  revelations.  On  page  280  we  have 
the  Church  of  God  described,  and  it  is  de- 
scribed as  having  perfect  Christian  teaching 
concerning  topics  the  New  Testament  de- 
clares were  mysteries  until  revealed  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles.  On  page  326  we 
read: 

"He  prayed  for  blessings  of  Christ  to  rest  on  the 
'brethren  so  long  as  there  should  be  a  band  of  Chris- 
'  tinns  to  possess  the  land,  for  thus  were  all  true 
'believers  of  Christ,  who  belonged  to  the  Church  of 
'God  called  by  those  who  did  not  belong  to  the 
'Church.  And  those  who  belonged  to  the  Church 
'were  fxithful,  yea  all  those  who  were  true  believers 
*  of  Christ,  took  upon  them  gladlv  the  name  of  Christ 
'or  Christians  as  they  were  called,  because  of  their 
•belief  in  Christ." 

The  New  Testament  declares  that  the 
disciples  of  Christ  were  first  called  "  Chris- 
tians" at  Antioch  over  one  hundred  years 
after  the  Book  of  Mormon  declares  they 
were  called  Christians  universally  in 
America. 

I  wish  now  to  call  attention  to  one  of 
those  little  things  that  speak  volumes. 
There  was  ft  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  co-adjutors  of  Campbell  concerning 
what  should  be  the  name  of  the  followers 
of  Christ.  Campbell,  Sheppard  and  others 
insisted  that  they  should  be  called  "Discip- 
les of  Chris*."  Walter  Scott  and  others 
insisted  that  they  should  be  called  "Chris- 
tians," and  that  the  Church  should  be 
called  "the  Church  of  God"  or  "Church  of 
Christ."  Rigdon  agreed  with  Scott.  Ob- 
serve that  bis  ideas  are  repeated  several 
times  in  the  above  extract.  By  inserting 
into  his  stole??  manuscript  his  ideas,  he  con- 
tradicted the  New  Testament  concerning 
the  time  the  name  Christian  was  first  given 
and  made  his  "big  thing"  a  tissue  of  ab- 
surdities. According  to  the  Book  of  Mormon 
there  were  great  numbers  of  Churches  of 
God  and  multitudes  of  Christians  hundreds 
of  years  before  Christ  came.  They  had 
a  perfect  knowledge  of  his  Gospel  and  the 
most  abstruse  ideas  of  modern  theology, 
all  settled  by  revelation,  long  before  Christ; 
and  the  most  singular  fact  is  that  the  Lord 
Agreed  with  Rigdon  in  all  of  these  revela- 
tions that  he  gave  these  highly  favored 
Nephites.  How  highly  favored  these  old 
prophets  were  in  receiving,  by  inspiration 
from  God,  all  of  Rigdon's  theology  1800 
years  before  the  advent  of  Sidney. 

We  come  now  to  another  of  those  little 
things  that  speak  volumes.  Rigdon  as  a 
regular.Baptist  prercher,  had  a  bitter  prej- 
udice against  all  secret  societies.  In  the 


days  of  the  anti-Masonic  excitement  of  the 
time  extending  from  1824-5  to  1834-5  Rig- 
don was  a  rabid  anti-Mason.     On   page  382 
he  gives  the  Masons  a  dig  and  airs  his  anti- 
Masonic  ideas.     Gadianton  and  a  band  of 
robbers  have  a  Masonic  lodge  and  act  just 
as  anti-Masons  said  Masons  acted.     Again 
on  pages  365-6  he  airs  his  anti-Masonic  ideas. 
A  band  of  cutthroats  have  a  secret  society 
with  oaths,  grips,  signs,   pass  words,  and 
swear  to  protect, each  other  in  crime.    On 
page  399  and  on  several  pages  following  we 
nave  a  repetition  of  Rigdon's  anti-Masonio 
ideas.  Seriously,  isthisthe  work  ofaNephite 
before  Christ,  or  is  it  the  work  of  the  anti- 
Masons,  Spaulding,  Rigdon,  or  Smith — one 
or  all  of  them?    Page  474  a  prophet  tells  the 
Nephites  that  on  the  night  our  Savior  Is 
born  it  will  be  as  light  as  day  all  night. 
The  sun  will  set  and  rise,  but  the  light  will 
not  be  diminished  in  the  least.    The  Bible 
flatly  contradicts  such  stuff*.    On  page  415 
we  are  told  again  that  the  darkness  at  our 
Savior's  crucifixion  will  last  three  days. 
The  Bible  says  three  hours.    Page  422  we 
are  told  that  it  remained  as  light  as  mid-day 
(Sidney  never  does  things   by  halves)  all 
one  night  and  a  star  was  seen,  the  night 
our  Savior  was  born.    What  sort  of  a  star 
could  be  seen  in  mid-daylight  we  are  not 
told.    Perhaps  all  the   Nephites  had  peep 
stones  and  looked  into  their  hats  and  saw 
the  star.  For  some  years  Gadianton 's  wicked 
Masons  vex  the  righteous  anti- Masonic  Ne- 
phites terribly  but  at  last  the  righteous  anti- 
Masons  prevail  and  exterminate  these  vile 
Sons  of  Darkness  the  Masons  and  righteous- 
ness prevails  all  over  the  land  as  the  result. 
Page  431  Mormon,  who  informs  us  that  he 
is  a  fully  developed  Christian,  says  that  he 
cannot  write  all  that  he  wants  to  write  be- 
cause of  the  imperfection  of  the  language. 
The  Almighty  has  inspired  a  man  to  engrave 
a  revelation  on   brass  plates  and  suddenly 
finds  himself  balked  by  the  imperfection  of 
the  language  that  he  has  in  his  ignorance 
chosen.    As  the  Mormon  God  is  not  infin- 
ite he  might  make  such  a  blunder.    Then 
follows  a  description  of  the  three  days  of 
darkness,    and    Hdney    just    cavorts    on 
King    Ahasuerus's     horse     in    depicting 
the     horrors     of    that    time,     that     ac- 
cording  to   the  Bible   never   was.     After 
this  was   heard   the  voice  of  our  Savior, 
and  it  was  heard  over  all  North  America. 
Sidney's  miracles   are   always   something 
worth  while;  none  of  your  little  miracles 
such  as  the  Son  of  God  wrought  in  Pales- 
tine,nothingbutsky-splittingand  universe- 
shaking  miracles  will  do  for  Sidney.    Then 
a  small  voice— not  a  loud  voice — is  heard 
that  pierces  their  frames  and  causes  their 
hearts  to  burn  ;  and  our  Savior,  speaking  in 
this  small  voice,  says  to  the  Nephites  on 
this  continent,  "I  am  the  Alpha  and  the 
Omega."    Let  the  reader  stop  fora  moment 
and  think  of  the  absurdity  of  the  Son  of 
God  saying  to  Nephites  on  this  continent, 
who  knew  nothing  at  all  about  the  Greeks 
or  their  language,  *'  I  am  the  Alpha  and  the 
Omega,"  the  first  and  the  last  letter  of  the 
Greek   alphabet.     He  might  as  well  have 


180 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


used  the  first  and  last  letters  of  the  Chero- 
kee alphabet. 

After  this  our  Savior,  who  had  been  res- 
urrected at  Jerusalem,  appears  on  this  con- 
tinent and  preaches  one  of  Sidney  Rigdon's 
discourses  to  them,  and  commands  them  to 
use  Sidney  Rigdon's  baptismal  formula, 
"Having  authority  given  me  of  Jesus  Christ 
I  baptize  you  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  By  the 
way,  Sidney  dropped  the  Disciple  peculiar- 
ity of  saying  "Spirit"  instead  of  "Ghost," 
and  went  back  to  his  old  Baptist  formula. 
Who  is  such  a  simpleton  as  to  believe  that 
our  Savior  visited  America  after  his  ascen- 
sion into  heaven,  in  violation  of  the  New 
Testament  that  declares  his  next  coming 
after  his  ascension  will  be  at  the  end  of  his 
dispensation  ;  that  his  mission  was  to  preach 
one  of  Sidney  Rigdon's  sermons  to  the 
aborigines  of  America,  and  to  give  as  the 
law  of  heaven,  by  solemn  revelation  of  the 
glorified  Son  of  God,  that  they  must  use  Rig- 
don's baptismal  formula.  On  page  444  we 
have  one  of  Rigdon's  idiotic  extravaganzas. 
Our  Saviour  commanded  doubting  Thomas 
to  thrust  his  fingers  into  the  nail  prints  in  his 
hands  and  feet,  and  into  the  side  that  had 
been  pierced.  Such  a  simple  natural  affair 
as  that  would  not  do  for  the  hifalutin  spread- 
eagle  glorifier  of  King  Ahasuerus'  horse. 
He  tells  us' that  the  entire  multitude  went 
forth  and  each  thrust  his  fingers  into  the 
nail  prints  in  his  hands,  into  his  feet,  and 
into  his  pierced  side.  We  learn  from  a  fol- 
lowing page  that  there  were  at  least  2,500 
of  them.  It  would  be  very  rapid  work  for 
a  person  to  go  up  and  put  a  finger  in  to  a 
nail  print  in  each  hand,  each  foot,  and  into 
the  pierced  side,  in  fifteen  seconds.  Sup- 
pose they  did  the  work  as  expeditiously  as 
that,  it  took  ten  hours  and  twenty  minutes 
to  go  through  this  farce.  The  Son  of  God 
came  down  from  heaven,  stood  ten  mortal 
hours  while  2,500  persons  filed  past  him, 
thrusting  fingers  into  a  nail  print  in  each 
hand,  each  foot,  and  into  his  pierced  side. 
Our  humorous  papers  used  to  have  cartoons 
caricaturir?  Grant's  hand-shaking  when  he 
shook  hands  with  a  few  hundred  for  an 
hour  or  two;  but  this  "beats  Grant."  If 
those  who  raised  the  cry  "  Any  tning  to  beat 
Grant"  had  called  on  Sidney  he  could  have 
beat  him  all  hollow  and  not  half  tried. 

Our  Saviour,  after  this  idiotic  tomfoolery 
is  finished,  delivers  a  discourse  made  of 
badly  arranged  scraps  of  his  discourses  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament.  We  cannot 
say  that  his  glorification  has  improved  his 
revelations.  Rigdon  can  tell  bigger  yarns 
than  the  truthful  history  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, but  when  it  comes  to  making  revela- 
tions that  is  another  thing.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  our  Saviour  follows  King 
James'  version.  Even  the  obsolete  English 
words,  style,  and  mistranslations  are  fol- 
lowed exactly.  He  appoints  twelve  apos- 
tles and  Nephi  baptizes  himself,  and  then 
the  eleven,  and  the  scenes  of  Pentecost  are 
outdone.  Jesus  did  not  come  back  from 
heaven  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  poured 
out  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  then  Sidney's 


Nephites  were  always  far  above  their  breth- 
ren back  in  Palestine.  Our  Saviour  exam- 
ines Nephi's  plates,  so  as  to  have  everything 
fixed  for  Imposter  Joe,  and  corrects  one 
error.  The  plates  did  not  contain  the  pro- 
phecy that  the  multitudes  would  arise  in 
America  at  our  Saviour's  resurrection.  The 
Nephites  admit  that  the  prophet  did  say 
so,  and  declare  that  prophecy  had  been  ful- 
filled. Observe,  again,  how  these  Nephites 
of  Sidney  outdo  their  brethren  in  Pala- 
tine. In  Palestine  a  few  arise  at  the  cruci- 
fixion ;  in  America  great  multitudes  at  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  We  have  then  a  spe- 
cimen of  Mormon  extravagance  of  ignor- 
ance. Our  Saviour  in  rebuking  Peter,  tells 
him  that  if  he  were  to  order  that  John 
should  remain  on  earth  till  his  second  coin- 
ing, it  is  no  concern  of  his,  and  that  he  is  to 
attend  to  his  own  work.  John  further  de- 
clares that  our  Saviour  did  not  say  that  he 
should  remain.  Here  was  something  that 
just  suited  Mormon  ignorance  and  folly. 
Rigdon  makes  our  Saviour  tell  three  Neph- 
ites that  they  shall  never  see  death,  and  re- 
main till  he  comes  avain.  Sidney's  Nephites 
are  blessed  again  above  all  others.  There 
is  no  doubt  here.  Our  Saviour  says  three 
shall  remain  instead  of  one.  He  bestows  a 
boon  he  did  not  bestow  upon  his  beloved 
disciple  John.  Imposter  Joe  and  Oliver 
Cowdery  have  a  revelation,  on  parchment- 
from  John  that  he  did  not  die,  and  did  re, 
main  on  earth,  in  flat  contradiction  of  God's 
word.  Just  such  silly  wonders  as  these  are 
what  Mormonism  feeds  on.  The  book  closes 
with  a  prophecy  of  the  coming  forth  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  denounces  fearful 
woes  on-all  who  do  not  receive  the  tomfool- 
eries of  Sidney  Rigdon,  Solomon  Spauld- 
ing  and  Imposter  Joe. 

The  Book  of  Nephi,  the  son  of  Nephi,  ia 
an  unimportant  one.  It  tells  us  on  page  481 
that  masonry  revived,  and  that  Satan  was 
let  loose  and  iniquity  did  fearfully  abound. 
Sidney  must  have  been  exceedingly  malig- 
nant against  the  Masons.  Moroni  takes  up 
Mormon's  work  and  he  informs  us  that 
Masonry  shall  be  prevalent  when  the  Book 
of  Mormon  appears;  and  that  churches 
shall  be  worldly  and  proud  and  that  it  will 
be  a  time  of  unmeasured  apostacy.  Above 
all  men  shall  deny  that  miracles  and  revela- 
tions are  possible.  Then  Sidney  goes  for 
the  Disciples  who  would  not  accept  the 
Baptist  idea  of  a  direct  and  miraculous 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  have 
Sidneys  ideas  for  several  pages  and  one  of 
hia  exhortations  in  his  most  approved  camp 
meeting  style. 

We  find  another  of  these  incidental  mat- 
ters that  expose  the  fraud  in  this  Book  of 
Mormon.  WP  Have  proved  that  c-paulding 
wrote  several  ma  mscripts.  To  his  second 
Mormon  man.  script  he  added  the  emigra- 
tion of  the  Z.arahemlites,  closing  his 
manuscript  with  the  book  called  the  "  Rook 
of  Mormon."  He  very  appropriately  haa 
Moroni  declare  that  he  finishes  the  record 
of  his  father;  and  that  he  has  only  a  few 
things  to  write,  a  few  things  that  his  father 
has  commanded  him  to  write  on  *he  fe\;r 


THE  BRADEN  ANP  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


131 


pages  left  on  the  plates.  He  declares  his 
father  made  the  record  and  declares  its 
intent.  He  then  says  he  would  write  more 
if  he  had  room  on  the  plates  but  he  cannot 
for  the  plates  are  full  and  he  has  no  ore  to 
make  any  more  and  is  alone.  He  then  adds 
the  few  pages  he  declared  he  would  and  the 
book  appropriately  closes. 

When  Spaulding  went  to  Pittsburg,  at 
Patterson's  request. he  rewrote  the  romance, 
writing  Mormon  Manuscript  No.  Ill,  and 
adding  the  Jaredite  portion.  He  overlooked 
this  language  of  Moroni,  with  which  he 
had  appropriately  closed  the  Manuscript 
No.  II.  and  as  the  Book  of  Mormon  now 
stands,  Moroni  wrote  56  pages — the  whole 
of  the  Jaredite  portion,  no  nothing,  for  his, 
plates  were  full,  and  he  could  write  no 
more.  That  one  blunder  is  enough  to  con- 
tisrxm  this  fraud. 

la  this  Jaredite  Portion,  written  on  noth- 
ing, and  with  nothing  as  a  basis  for  it,  we 
havo  a  wonderful  series  of  stories.  Mor- 
mon Has  buried  all  the  plates  except  "these 
few  plates."  that  he  handed  to  Moroni,  the 
Plates  of  E\her  with  the  rest  years  before. 
Where  did  Mo/oni  get  the  plates  of  Ether 
to  use  in  writing  the  56  pages  he  wrote 
on  nothing?  He  wiote  on  nothing  and  had 
nothing  to  write.  The  Book  of  Ether  says 
that  the  speech  of  tha  Jaredites  was  not 
confounded  at  Babsl.  The  Bible  declares 
that  the  speech  of  all  mankind  was  con- 
founded. If  time  would  permit  we  could 
multiply  almost  indefinitely  such  contra- 
dictions. We  will  now  give  an  idiotic 
caricature  of  the  history  of  iN"oah  and  the 
aark  and  defy  anyone,  outside,  or  ixiside  of  a 
lunatic  asylum  to  equal  it.  North  took  eight 
persons  into  the  ark.  Jared  took  with  him 
twenty-two  grown  persons  and  thfeir  fami- 
lies. Noah  took  with  him  into  ths  ark.  at 
most,  two  of  all  animals  and  fowls  that 
could  not  subsist  in  or  on  the  water: 
Jared  took  two  of  all  animals  and  fowia, 
swarms  of  bees  and  wonder  of  wonders, 
two  of  all  kinds  of  fishes  and  all  kinds  of 
seeds.  Sidney  never  does  things  by  halves. 
Jared  was  to  take  food  and  water  for  this 
large  company  of  persons,  for  all  his  fowls, 
and  fishes,  and  flowers  for  his 'bees.  If  the 
cubit  used  was  the  sacred  cubit,  as  was 
doubtless  the  case,  the  ark  was  60  feet,  long, 
100  feet  wide,  and  60  feet  high.  Jared  built 
eight  cigar  shaped  canoes,  and  each  was 
small,  set  light  ou  the  water,  was  sharply 
pointed  at  each  end,  and  as  tight  as  a 
dish,  for  we  are  told  "the  top  thereof 
"was  as  tight  as  a  dish,  and  the  sides 
"thereof  was  as  tight  as  a  dish,  and  the 
11  bottom  therefore  was  as  tight  as  a  dish." 
Each  of  these  barges  was  tiie  length  of  a 
tree  and  not  more  than  75  feet.  Since  the 
ends  were  sharply  pointed,  the  ark  would 
hold  as  much  as  2000  such  barges  or  250 
fleets  of  such  barges.  All  kinds  of  animals 
could  enter  the  ark;  there  were  many  that 
could  not  enter  one  of  those  canoes. 
Noah  was  told  to  have  a  system  of 
windows  in  the  ark  tor  that  is  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word.  Jared 
made  his  as  tight  as  a  dish.  He  took 


into  the«e  oight  canoes,  sharply  pointed  at 
each  end,  not  longer  than  a  tree,  twenty- 
two  grown  persons  with  their  families,  two 
of  all  kinds  of  animals,  two  of  all  kinds  of 
fowls,  two  of  all  kinds  of  fishes,  swarms  of 
bees,  and  food  and  water  for  all  for  3-14 
days,  and  then  shut  down  the  door.  No 
wonder  he  halloed  to  the  Lord  for  Jight  and 
air,  shut  up  with  such  a  crowd  in  a  tight 
little  canoe,  as  tight  as  the  inside  of  a  jug 
with  the  cork  in. 

The  Lord  finds  that  he  has  made  a  mis- 
take in  ordering  Jared  to  make  the  canoes 
after  the  Divine  pattern.  He  seems  to  have 
forgotten  that  animal  life  needu  light  and 
air.  How  does  he  remedy  it?  With  infi- 
nite wisdom  he  tells  Jared  to  knock  a  hole 
in  the  top  and  another  in  the  bottom  of  each 
barge.  Now,  being  an  unbelieving  Gen- 
tile, and  not  a  spiritually  enlightened  and 
inspired  Mormon,  I  can  see  that  the  hole  in 
the  top  would  let  in  the  air  and  light,  if  it 
was  big  enough,  and  it  would  let  in  water 
and  drown  them  all  in  a  storm  also,  but  for 
the  life  of  me  I  cannot  see  what  that  hole 
in  the  bottom  was  for,  unless  it  was  to  let 
in  water  and  drown  them.  With  ordinary 
mortals,  holes  in  the  bottom  of  such  heavily 
loaded  canoes  would  send  every  soul  of 
them  to  "Davy  Jones's  Locker"  quicker 
than  you  could  say  Jack  Robinson,  with 
your  mouth  ready  puckered,  as  the  Yan- 
kee expressed  it. 

But  something  like  Mormon  inspiration 
seizes  me  ;  I  see  it  all  as  clear  as  mud.  An 
Irishman's  boots  had  holes  in  the  toes. 
Pat  sagely  cut  a  hole  in  each  heel.  When 
asked  what  that  was  done  for,  he  replied. 
"Why,  to  let  the  wather  out  at  the  hael 
when  it  comes  in  at  the  toe,  sure."  As 
Jared's  canoes  were  to  go  plunging  and 
diving  through  the  water,  much  of  the  time 
under  water,  the  hole  at  the  bottom  was  to 
tet  the  water  run  out,  when  it  ran  in  at  the 
top.  Having  provided  ventilation  on  the 
most  approved  scientific  principles, and  hav- 
ing guarded,  in  the  most  scientific  manner, 
agramst  drawing  by  the  water  let  in  at  tho 
ventilating  hole, the  Lord  then  provides  light 
foi  tNhem,and  his  mistakes  are  all  corrected. 
"And  Jared  did  moulten  out  of  a  rock" 
(shades  of  Johnson,  whatEnglish)!  "sixteen 
small  stones,  and  they  were  all  clear 
like  glajs  '— another  scientific  discovery — 
glass  at  ih-s  time  of  Babel.  He  brought 
them  to  thfc  Lord,  and  the  Lord  touched 
them  with  hfs  finger,  and  immediately 
they  let  out  a  tlood  of  light,  and  Jared  did 
not  have  to  use  kerosene,  and  he  was  inde- 
pendent of  the  SUkd*rd  Oil  Company.  Jared 
placed  one  of  these  stones  in  each  end  of  each 
canoe,  and  the  Lord  »jnd  Jared  got  out  of 
all  of  these  scrapes  ex<>ept  one  small  mys- 
tery. How  did  the  Lord  *nd  Jared  get  sev- 
eral times  as  much  as  Notth  took  into  the 
ark  into  less  than  one  two  hundred  and 
fiftieth  part  of  the  space,  and  how  did  they 
get  into  one  of  these  canoes,  anunuls  that 
must  have  been  much  taller  than  a  canoe 
was  deep ;  and  then  what  about  thai  big 
tank  of  fish,  or  did  the  fish  get  along  with- 
out water  to  live  in,  and  were  then  takon 


182 


1'HE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


into  the  canoes  to  save  them  from  bein<* 
drowned?  But  then  such  questions  will 
spoil .  the  best  revelations  in  the  world, 
even  the  revelations  of  Sidney  Rigdon. 
Two  of  the  stones  mentioned  above  were 
the  stone  interpreters  of  Jared's  brother, 
and  imposter  Joe  found  them  with  the 
plates  buried  by  Moroni,  although  Moroni 
never  had  them,  and  never  buried  them, 
and  no  Nephite  ever  saw  them,  and  they 
were  never  to  come  forth  until  the  Gentiles 
were  all  converted. 

On  page  509  Moroni  prophecies  that  the 
one  who  finds  these  plates  shall  show  them 
to  three  persons.  Joe  showed  them  to  eleven. 
David  YVhitmer,  says  Moroni,  showed  them 
to  his  mother,  and  Emma  Smith  says  she 
saw  them  for  days  on  the  table  and  handled 
them  only  covered  with  a  thin  cloth,  and, 
strange  daughter  of  Eve  that  she  was,  she 
never  "peeked"  under  that  cloth.  With 
all  our  respect  for  the  "Elect Lady"  we  can 
not  swallow  such  a  miracle  as  that.  On  the 
same  page  we  have  this  balderdash  "  Jared's 
brothers  did  put  forth  these  stones  into  the 
vessels  which  were  prepared,  one  into  each 
end  thereof,  and  behola  they  did  give  light 
unto  the  vessels  thereof."  "Thereof" 
means  of  it  or  of  them.  The  vessels  thereof 
then  means  the  vessels  of  the  ends,  for  that 
must  be  what  "thereof"  refers  to.  Such 
balderdash  as  that  is  the  "Fullness  of  the 
Gospel,"  given  by  inspiration — the  fullest 
inspiration  man  has  ever  known,  was  pre- 
served by  miracle,  revealed  by  miracle, 
and  given  to  the  world,  word  by  word,  so 
precious  is  it,  by  direct  miracle  of  Almighty 
God.  Who  dares  to  stand  up  and  blaspheme 
the  Almighty  by  such  an  assertion  ? 

At  last  the  'Jaredites  set  sail.  Their 
canoes  wers  in  the  depths  of  the  sea,  far 
under  the  water,  and  not  a  drop  of  water 
ran  in  through  these  two  holes,  one  in  the 
top  and  the  other  in  the  bottom  of  each 
canoe,  and  they  had  air  with  these  holes 
under  the  water.  Bah!  Let  us  stop!  If, 
as  Imposter  Joe  tells  us,  God  saves  the 
world  by  folly,  there  is  idiocy  enough  in 
that  one  scrap  of  Mormon  "P'uilness  of  the 
Gospel"  to  eternally  save  a  whole  universe 
of  Mormons. 

On  page  514  we  are  told  that  Masonry 
broke  out  among  the  Jaredites  and  of  course 
Satan  was  let  loose.  We  have  a  combina- 
tion of  Herodias  and  Tullia,  Herod  and 
Tarquin.  Jared,  a  murderous  conspirator, 
promises  the  hand  of  his  wicked  daughter 
to  Akish  if  he  would  bring  him  the  head  of 
the  king,  Jared's  father.  Akish  starts 
Masonry  among  the  Jaredites  to  accomplish 
bis  infamous  purpose,  and  then  "they  all 
did  swear  unto  Akish,  by  the  God  of 
Heaven,  and  also  by  the  heavens,  and  also 
by  the  earth ;  and  also  by  their  own  heads," 
(  What  a  fearful  job  of  cussing  they  did  do), 
"that  who  should  vary  from  the  assistance 
that  Akish  desired"  (what  English)  "should 
lose  his  head,  aud  whoso  should  divulge 
what  Akish  made  known  unto  them,  the 
same  should  lose  his  life."  Ordinary 
mortals  would  suppose  that  when  a  man 
loses  his  head,  he  lost  his  life ;  but  then 


Mormon  inspiration  is  a  wonderful  thing. 
The  difference  between  losing  his  head  and 
losing  his  life  is  as  great  as  the  Irish  Justice 
of  the  Peace  discovered  when  he  declared, 
"It  makes  all  the  differ  in  the  wurruld,  in 
the  eyes  of  the  law,  whether  he  said,  'Come 
out  of  the  hoos  McCarty,'  or  'McCarty  come 
out  of  the  hoos.'  "  "And  Akish  did  admin- 
ister unto  them  the  oaths  which  were  given 
to  them  of  old,  who  also  sought  power, 
which  had  been  handed  down  even  from 
Cain,  who  was  a  murderer  from  the  begin- 
ning." There  you  have  it — Cain  was  the 
first  Mason!  "And  they  were  kept  up  by 
the  power  of  the  devil,"  ( The  devil  origin- 
ated the  first  Masonic  Lodge)  "to  administer 
those  oaths  unto  the  people  and  keep  them 
in  darkness,  to  help  such  as  sought  power, 
to  gain  power  and  to  murder  and  to  plunder 
and  to  lie  and  to  commit  all  manner  of 
wickedness  and  whoredoms.  Now  it  was 
the  daughter  of  Jared  who  put  it  into  his 
heart  to  search  up  these  things  of  old.  and 
Jared  put  it  into  the  heart  of  Akish,  where- 
fore Akish  administered  it  unto  his  kindred 
and  friends,  leading  them  away  by  fair 
promises,  to  do  whatever  he  desired,  and 
it  came  to  pass  that  they  formed  a  secret 
combination,  even  as  they  of  old,  which 
combination  is  most  abominable  and  wicked 
above  all  things  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord." 
There  Masons  put  that  in  your  pipes  and 
smoke  it.  The  Lord  is  not  a  Mason,  "for 
the  Lord  worketh  not  in  secret  combin- 
ations." "Neither  doth  he  will  that  man 
should  shed  blood,  but  in  all  things  hath 
forbidden  it  from  the  beginning  of  men." 
The  Lord  is  an  anti-Mason,  and  don't  you 
forget  it. 

"  And  I,  Moroni,  do  not  write  the  manner 
of  their  oaths  and  combinations."  He  is  not 
a  Morgan,  then,  "for  it  hath  been  made 
known  unto  me  they  are  had  among  all 
people  and  they  are  had  among  the  Laman- 
ites,  and  they  have  caused  the  destruction 
of  this  people  of  whom  I  am  writing,  and 
also  the  destruction  of  the  Nephites." 
What  an  awful  thing  this  Masonry  has 
been,  and  now  listen :  "  Whatsoever  nation 
shall  uphold  such  secret  combinations  to 
get  power  and  gain,  until  they  spread  over 
the  land,  behold  they  shall  be  destroyed, 
for  the  Lord  will  not  suffer  the  blood  of  his 
saints  shall  be  shed  by  them  ;  they  shall  al- 
ways cry  unto  him  from  the  ground  for  ven- 
geance upon  them,  and  yet  he  avenge  them 
not."  Now  listen,  Masons:  "Wherefore, 
O  ye  Gentiles,  it  is  wisdom  in  God  thai 
these  things  snail  be  shown  unto  you,  and 
that  thereby  ye  may  repent  of  your  sins 
and  suffer  not  that  these  murderous  combi- 
nations shall  get  above  you  which  are  built 
up  to  get  power  and  gain,  and  the  work, 
even  the  work  of  destruction  shall  come 
upon  you,  even  the  sword  of  Justice  of  the 
Eternal  God  shall  fall  upon  you."  Won't 
they  catch  it,  though ! !  "To  your  over- 
throw and  destruction  if  you  shall  suffer 
these  things  to  be,  wherefore  God  com- 
mandeth  you  when  you  shall  see  these 
things  come  among  you  that  you  shall 
awake  to  a  sense  of  your  awful  condition  " — 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


133 


one  of  Rigdon's  revival  expressions — "be- 
cause of  this  secret  combination  which 
shall  be  among  you  all.  Woe  be  unto  it, 
because  of  the  blood  of  them  that  hath  been 
slain,  for  they  cry  for  vengeance  upon  it, 
and  also  upon  those  who  built  it  up,  for  it 
cometh  to  pass  that  whoso  buildeth  it  up 
seeketh  to  overthrow  the  freedom  of  all 
lands,  nations  and  countries."  The  anti- 
Mason  rant  of  1825  to  1830.  "  And  it  bring- 
eth  to  pass  the  destruction  of  all  people,  for 
it  is  built  up  by  the  devil."  There,  Masons, 
you  have  it — the  devil  is  the  founder  of 
Masonry,  and  Cain  was  the  first  Mason! 
"Who 'is  the  father  of  all  lies."  There, 
Masons,  that  cooks  the  Masonic  goat  to  a 
cinder! ! 

Page  517  King  Heth  turns  Mason,  and, 
of  course,  plots  to  murder  some  one.  Page 
522  Masonry  breaks  out  in  a  new  spot  and 


Satan  is  let  loose  of  course.  In  all  there 
were  over  a  score  of  stabs  at  Masonry,  cov- 
ering several  pages.  Every  charge  made 
against  Masonry  in  the  years  1825  to  1830  \a 
reiterated  several  times.  When  we  learn 
from  Mrs.  Spaulding  that  Spaulding  was  & 
rabid  anti-Mason,  and  remember  that  Rig- 
don,  a  regular  Baptist  preacher,  was  fanat- 
ically opposed  to  secret  societies  and  was  a 
ranting  anti-Mason,  and  that  Smith  was  an 
anti-Mason,  all  this  rant  and  abuse  is  just 
what  is  to  be  expected.  But  who  is  such  a 
sodden  fool  as  to  believe  that  Israelites,  in 
the  wilds  of  America,  1400  years  before  the 
anti-Masonic  excitement  in  the  United 
States,  uttered  repeatedly  all  the  anti- Ma- 
sonic abuse  of  Masonry  ? 

This  one  feature  is  enough  to  condemn 
the  claim  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  to 
expose  it  as  a  transparent  fraud. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  THIRTEENTH  SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — The  Spaulding  story  upon 
examination  has  been  fully  shown  to  be  a 
ftory; — a  wonderfully  large  one,  too,  for  its 
time.  That  thing  was  thoroughly  answered 
and  put  to  shame  by  Sidney  Rigdon  as  early 
as  January,  1836.  His  slaughter  of  that 
through  a  published  article  in  the  Messen- 
ger and  Advocate,  a  paper  printed  here  in 
Kirtland,  was  sufficient  to  put  all  honest 
men  at  the  time  upon  their  guard.  Mr. 
iligdon  showed  that  there  was  not  only  no 
truth  in  the  general  statement  connecting 
him  with  Joseph  Smith  and  the  publication 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  but  further,  that 
each  and  every  one  of  the  statements  and 
allegations  said  to  have  been  made  by  the 
parties  (the  very  same  ones  Braden  has 
brought  up  and  cited  as  his  witnesses  in 
this  discussion)  were  false.  This  was  long 
prior  to  the  death  of  Mr.  Patterson,  the 
Presbyterian  preacher,  in  Pittsburg,  whom 
Mr.  Rigdon,  in  his  letter  of  1839,  refers  to 
as  not  lending  himself  "to  the  infamous 
plot  to  blacken  his  [Rigdon's]  character." 
A  man  of  no  sympathies  in  common  with 
the  Latter  Day  Saints,  and  whom  Rigdon's 
enemies  had  held  out  as  the  one  to  whom 
Spaulding  delivered  his  manuscript  for  pub- 
lication in  Pittsburg,  and  as  knowing  cer- 
tain things  connecting  Rigdou  with  the  ro- 
mance manuscript.  But  these  persons  never 
get  his  (Patterson's)  statement,  although 
he  lived  twenty  years  after  they  had  started 
the  story,  and  eighteen  j'ears  after  it  had 
lieeu  publicly  challenged  and  put  to  shame 


by  the  Saints.  However,  Wm.  Small,  of 
Camden,  N.  J.,  in  the  meantime,  goes  to 
this  same  Patterson  in  Pittsburg,  and  he 
makes  affidavit  to  the  fact  that  he  never 
knew  anything  about  such  a  manuscript  as 
these  parties  had  told  about.  But  this  don't 
in  the  least  dash  these  story-tellers ;  they 
lie  low  for  a  time  till  Patterson  dies  ;  and 
then,  like  them  of  old  who  said  to  the  sol- 
diers, "  Say  that  his  disciples  came  and 
stole  him  away  by  night  while  we  slept," 
they  revive  and  start  other  theories  in  order 
to  carry  out  their  nefarious  work. 

If  it  was  so  easy  in  the  first  century  to 
get  the  guard  to  lie  with  reference  to  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  after  they  had  beheld 
the  heavenly  messenger  and  had  fallen 
back  as  dead  men,  would  it  be  remarkable 
that  in  the  nineteenth  century  men  would 
be  able  to  get  parties  to  spin  falsehoods,  to 
fill  up  the  measure  of  crime  as  to  this 
Spaulding  tale? 

But  these  fair  and  full  denials  of  this 
story  were  made  when  the  professed  ''Man- 
uscript Found,"  was  in  the  hands  of  Howe 
at  Painesville,  only  nine  miles  away  from 
Kirtland  and  consequently,  while'  there 
was  access  to  the  first,  and  only  sufficient 
evidence  they  ever  had  for  such  a  story,  if 
ever  such  a  story  had  existed  in  fact ;  and 
with  the  challenge  of  the  truth  of  the  story 
in  tneir  very  faces,  and  a  demand  made  for 
the  proof,  by  one  of  the  men  assailed,  too, 
with  others,  and  in  the  very  midst  of  the 
parties  who  claimed  to  know,  Hulburt  and 
Howe  and  these  men,  (said  to  be  witnesses), 


134 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


fail  to  put  forth  a  single  statement  that  can 
in  any  view  of  the  case  be  looked  upon  as 
evidence,  burned  the  manuscript  they  had 
received  of  Spaulding,  s»  admitted  by  them- 
selves and  began  in  an  underhanded  and 
insidious  manner  to  publish  their  stories 
through  the  ready  newspapers  for  such 
things,  and  in  1840,  after  the  Saints  were 
far  away  from  this  part  of  the  country,  in 
the  States  of  Missouri,  Illinois  and  Iowa, 
Howe  gets  out  his  slanderous  and  disrepu- 
table work  of  "  Mormonism  Unveiled,"  or 
"History  of  the  Mormons." 

This  was  four  years  after  Sidney  Rigdon 
through  the  Kirtland  publication  had 
shown  the  falsity  of  the  story  ;  one  year 
after  his  letter  in  the  "Boston  Journal," 
which  played  such  havoc  among  the  des- 
poilers  of  his  good  name ;  one  year  after 
the  full  and  clear  examination  and  plain 
contradiction  of  the  story  by  Parley  P. 
Pratt,  in  the  New  Era,  a  New  York  paper; 
and  five  years  after  the  story  had  been  pub- 
licly met  and  put  to  shame  in  various  parts 
of  the  United  States  and  Canada,  by  the 
elders  of  the  Saints,  and  notwithstanding 
all  of  this,  Howe  and  Robert  Patterson, 
this  last  a  little  fellow  now  livingover  here 
at  Pittsburg  (who  would  like  to  do  some- 
thing to  destroy  the  faith  of  the  Saints,  if 
he  only  could  rake  up  something  to  do,) 
brazenly  put  out  for  the  truth,  the  state- 
ment that  their  story  was  never  denied  till 
just  lately.  Men  who  will  deliberately  or 
ignorantly  make  such  false  claims  as  these, 
and  ask  you  to  believe  them,  cannot  be  re- 
lied upon  in  any  feature  of  the  case  by  hon- 
est men.  Before  a  person  publishes  a  thing 
as  true,  he  should  know  it  to  be  such,  and 
he  cannot  justify  himself  afterwards  upon 
the  ground,  or  plea  of  ignorance. 

Another  point  do  not  forget.  All  the 
time,  from  1834  to  1840,  this  same  Howe  had 
the  Spaulding  manuscript  in  his  hands,  and 
at  the  same  time  he  had  it  in  his  hands, 
Mesdames  Davidson  and  McKinstry,  the 
widow  and  daughter  of  Solomon  Spauld- 
ing, were  claiming  it  was  in  fact,  the  genuine 
article  that  Spauldiug  wrote  ;  the  "MANU- 
SCRIPT FOUND."  And  Howe  writes  Mrs. 
Davidson  a  letter  in  the  meantime,  saying, 
"It  did  not  read  as  we  expected,  and  we 
did  not  use  it ;"  but  never  the  once  hints 
that  it  was  the  wrong  manuscript,  or  not 
the  "Manuscript  Found,"  as  claimed  by 
these  parties,  who  were  the  only  persons 
under  the  sun  wno  could  possibly  tell 
whether  it  was  the  "Manuscript  found'1  or 
not. 

He  never  once  in  his  letter  to  them  asks 
If  they  did  not  have  another  manuscript 
some  where  of  Spaulding's,  or  if  they  had 
any  means  of  telling  whether  he  had  the 
right  one;  or  whether  Hulburt  had  played 
off  on  him  and  given  him  the  wrong  one. 
No ;  Howe  knew  he  had  the  Spaulding 
Manuscript  in  his  possession,  and  that  story 
in  his  control,  with  all  advantage  in  his 
favor  ;  and  as  the  coward  that  strikes  down 
his  innocent  victim  at  the  time  he  thinks 
no  whisper  of  the  deed  can  ever  fall  upon 
mortal  ear,  so,  brooding  in  jealousy  and  in- 


cited through  the  lies  and  tales  which  had 
been  poured  into  his  ready  mind,  he  puts 
forth  his  hand  to  consign  to  the  past  the 
first  and  only  evidence  of  this  Spaulding 
tale,  while,  with  the  weapons  of  false  state- 
ments and  stories  hawked  about  by  the 
vile  and  depraved,  he  essays  to  destroy  an 
innocent  and  noble  people. 

He  knew  at  the  time  of  his  writing  that  he 
ought  to  have  a  different  class  of  evidence 
to  meet  these  things  with  and  make  good 
his  assertions  than  that  which  he  had,  and 
he  states  in  his  book  that  he  will  furnish 
depositions  for  this  purpose,  and  which,  he 
says,  "will  sink  these  people."  Oh!  yes; 
sink  them;  that  was  the  object  of  Howe  and 
Hulbert ;  but  he  fails,  however,  to  publish, 
or  give  in  all  of  his  writings  or  works,  * 
single  deposition  of  any  person  whatever, 
notwithstanding  this  boast. 

But  what  does  he  do?    Answer  : 

1.  He    publishes    spurious,  garbled,  per- 
verted and  false  things  under  the  claim  he 
was  making  quotations  from  the  works  of 
the  Saints. 

2.  He  publishes  the  questionable  state- 
ments of  a  few  persons,  the  quoted  state- 
ments   of   two   others'  ;    all    of   which  are 
positively  contradicted   by  Mrs    (Solomon 
Spaulding)  Davidson,  Solomon  Spaulaing's 
daughter,  Mrs.  McKinstry,  Sidjoey  Rigdon, 
Parley  P.  Pratt,  and  Patterson,  the  Presby- 
terian preacher  at  Pittsburg;  besides  the 
fact  that  they  so  clearly  and  unmistakably 
bear  upon  the  face  the  stamp  of  inconsist- 
ency and  falsehood.    They  hold  the   idea 
throughout  that  these  testifiers,  who  did 
not  pretend  that  they  had  heard  of  or  seen 
Spaulding's  writing  for  more  than  twenty 
years,  were  so  familiar  with  a  manuscript, 
(which,  to  have  been  what  they  claim  for  it, 
must  have  contained  from  fifteen  hundred 
to  two  thousand  pages,)  that  they  could, 
after   twenty   years'    lapse  of   time,    give 
names  that  were  at  the  time  strange  and 
new  to  them;  and  never  spoken  by  them  for 
all  of  this  time ;    and  other  little  things 
which  it  is  plain  the  copiers  of  the  pre- 
tended statements  must  have  taken  from 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  as  this  was  four  years 
after  its  publication,  and  done  when  they 
have  the  book  before  them,  this  last  fact 
being  clearly  disclosed  in  the  statements 
themselves. 

The  absurdity,  however,  does  not  rest 
alone  upon  all  of  these  things ;  but  their 
statements  were  emphatically,  directly  and 
flatly  contradicted  by  the  manuscript  then 
in  Howe's  possession,  and  which  claimed 
for  itself  to  be  the  one  Spaulding  said  was 
fonnd  in  a  cave,  and  which  was  truly  the 
"  MANUSCRIPT  FOUND." 

These  statements  so  directly  contradict- 
ed, together  with  a  few  fraudulent  affida- 
vits which  Hulburt  got  up  in  New  York, 
and  which  I  have  fully  shown  were  fraud- 
ulent, is  the  entire  stock  in  trade  of  Mr. 
Howe  to  form  his  basis  of  belief  and  cause 
him  to  so  severely  and  viciously  attack  the 
faith  of  the  Saints  and  make  them  appear 
odious,  except  the  bare  disbelief  of  himself 
in  God,  the  Scriptures,  and  the  fact  that 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


135 


there  was  any  such  thing  in  the  universe  of 
God,  or  history  of  man,  as  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  which  the  Saints  believed  and  claimed 
to  rejoice.  Ah!  The  secret  is  unfolded  in 
his  own  words: — "I  could  betler  believe 
that  Spaulding  wrote  it  than  Joe  Smith  saw 
an  angel."  And  so  he  wrote  as  Voltaire, 
Hume  and  Thomas  Paine  from  the  stand- 
point of  his  unbelief,  without  the  honesty 
of  these  others.  I  might  introduce  here  as 
cumulative  evidence  on  this  question  the 
additional  statement  of  Mrs.  McKinstry, 
who  had  a  better  opportunity  of  knowing, 
and  did  know  the  manuscript  of  her  father 
better,  than  either  John  or  Martha  Spauld- 
ing and  who  as  late  as  the  year  1880,  pub- 
lished, (so  stated  by  the  compiler,  Mrs. 
Dickenseii),  an  affidavit  in  the  Scribner 
Monthly,  still  claiming  and  reaffirming  that 
thii  H'ulburt  did  get  the  "Manuscript 
Found."  The  statement  of  this  Robert 
Patterson,  of  Pittsburgh,  who  is  trying  to 
find  some  terrible  thing  against  the  Saints, 
to  Hulburt  4  years  ago,  in  the  presence  of 
Mrs.  Hulburt,  "that  his  father,  [Mr.  Pat- 
terson,  the  preacher,]  always  claimed  that 
he  did  not  believe  there  was  ever  such  a 
manuscript  as  the  parties  claimed  the  'MAN- 
USCRIPT FOUND,'  to  be,  about  their  printing 
office  in  Pittsburgh."  And  notwithstand- 
ing this,  this  same  Robert  Patterson,  in  1882, 
suppresses  in  his  publication  this  claim  of 
his  father,  and  gives  the  purported  statement 
as  obtained  from  one,  Rev.  (?)  Samuel  Wil- 
liams who  wrote  up  a  list  ofstories  for  pub- 
lication against  the  Saints,  when  the  first 
three  lines  of  the  statement  clearly  show 
that  it  is  a  fraud,  and  that  Patterson  never 
had  anything  to  do  with  it  whatever.  It  is 
as  follows  : — "R.Patterson  had  in  his  em- 
ployment Silas  Engles  at  the  time,  a  fore- 
man printer,"  etc.,  then,  signed  at  the  bot- 
tom, "Robert  Patterson."  This  is  certain- 
ly enough  on  this. 

The  statement  of  Mrs.  Hulburt,  made  on 
Tuesday,  February  5th,  1884,  I  now  submit 
to  you : — She  said  that, 

"Mr.  Hulburt  never  obtained  but  one  manuscript 
from  Mrs.  Davison.  That  one  he  let  E.  D.  Howe  have. 
When  Mrs.  (Spaulding)  Davison  let  him  have  it.  he 
said  he  promised  to  return  it;  and  when  he  let  Howe 
have  it  Howe  promised  to  restore  it  to  Mrs.  Spanlding, 
but  he  never  did.  Hulburt  *pent  about  six  m»nths  tinie 
and  a  good  deal  of  money  looking  up  the  Spaulding 
manuscript  and  other  evidence,  but  he  was  disappoint- 
ed in  not  finding  what  he  wanted.  This  was  the  rea- 
eon  he  turned  the  whole  thing  over  to  Howe.  He  nev- 
er was  satisfied  with  what  he  found,  and  while  on  his 
death-beil  he  would  have  givpn  everything  he  had  in 
the  world  could  he  have  been  certain  there  was  ever  a 
"Manuscript  Found,"  as  claimed,  similar  to  the  Book 
of  Mormon." 

This  is  overwhelming  proof,  showing 
there  was  never  any  such  manuscript  as 
they  claimed  Spaulding  wrote,  and  that 
they  got  the  quire  of  paper  upon  which  he 
did  write.  It  is  the  confirming  proof,  too, 
of  Howe's  guilt.  Why  did  he  not  do  as  he 
agreed,  send  the  manuscript  which  he  got 
back  to  Mrs.  Davidson?  The  reason  is  too 
plain  to  be  concealed  for  a  moment.  He  is 
eo  anxious  to  have  it  destroyed  that  he  vio- 
lates his  agreement  to  return  "as  soon  as 
used."  Why  did  he  not  return  it  when  "it 


did  not  read  as  they  expected,"  at  the  time 
he  wrote  to  Mrs.  Davidson? 

Shame  on  such  trickery  ! 

I  might  also  introduce  the  emphatic  state- 
ment of  Mrs.  Emma  Smith,  wife  of  Joseph 
Smith  the  Seer.  She  positively  states : 
"That  no  acquaintance  was  formed  between 
Sidney  Rigdon  and  the  Smith  family  till 
after  the  church  was  organized  in  the  year 
1830."  "That  neither"  her  husband  nor 
herself  "ever  saw  Sidney  Rigdon  until  long 
after  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  in  print." 
This  is  the  statement  of  one  of  the  most 
honored  and  esteemed  ladies  of  Illinois,  and 
who,  after  the  murder  of  her  husband,  con- 
tinued a  resident  of  the  State,  raising  her 
family,  and  departing  this  life  but  a  short 
time  ago  in  a  ripe  age,  loved  by  all  who 
knew  her.  Also  the  positive  declaration  of 
David  Whitmer,  made  at  Richmond,  Mo.. 
April,  1882,  in  answer  to  a  question  asked 
him  in  the  presence  of  a  number  of  persons, 
by  President  Joseph  Smith  of  Lamoni,  la.,  to 
which  he  gave  this  answer :  "That  the  Rook 
of  Mormon  was  published  long  before  Sidney 
Rigdon  was  known  to  our  (the  witness), 
family,  or  the  Smiths  ;  that  I  know  that  the 
story  told  of  the  Spaulding  romance  in  con- 
nection with  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  false." 

I  will,  in  this  connection,  again  call  your 
attention  to  the  affidavit  of  Mrs.  Salisbury, 
to  which  Braden  was  so  hasty  to  speak  of 
last  evening  as  being  a  lie,  and  therefore  the 
witness  could  not  be  believed.  Let  us  ex- 
amine it  and  see  who  lied.  She  says. 
"That  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  said 
book,  my  brother,  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  lived 
in  the  family  of  my  father  in  the  town  of 
Manchester,  Ontario  county,  N.  Y." 

That,  you  will  not  certainly  say,  is  con- 
tradicted. Now  look  at  the  next: 

"  That  he  had,  all  of  his  life  to  this  time, 
made  his  home  with  the  family." 

Do  you  say  this  is  contradicted?  Where 
was  his  home  to  this  time?  Notice,  she 
does  not  say  he  was  at  home  all  the  time, 
but  "made  it  his  home  with  the  family." 
To  the  year  1827,  he  was  a  young  man,  and 
his  home  was  with  the  family,  although  he 
at  times  worked  away  from  home.  There 
are  thousands  of  poor  boys  who  have  to  Jo 
this,  and  my  observation  of  humanity  tells 
me  that  they  are  just  about  as  apt  to  be 
honorable  and  truthful  as  those  who  stay 
at  home  and  don't  have  any  work  to  do ;  or, 
if  they  do  have,  do  not  do  it.  In  this  year 
he  gets  married,  (steals  his  wife,  Braden 
says,)  although  he  was  in  his  22d  year.  ;uid 
the  lady  he  marries  was  in  her  23d.  Well. 
it  rather  strikes  my  mind  that  she  wanted 
to  be  stolen.  Besides,  it  is  a  proof  that 
their  Campbellite  preacher,  Rigdon,  did  not 
steal  everything  that  came  into  Smith's 
possession. 

But  Mr.  Smith  says  in  his  history,  that 
after  the  marriage  he  went  to  his  father's 
and  remained,  living  in  the  family  a  year 
and  farmed  with  his  father.  Here  is  his 
home  till  1828,  certain,  and  without  any 
contradiction  of  any  witnesses.  And  it  is 
certain  from  all,  that  all  the  time  during 
the  year  1827  he  was  here  in  his  father's 


I  SB 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLER   DEBATE. 


family,  and  this  is  the  time  Tucker,  Hul- 
burt,  etal.,  tried  to  fix,  as  the  time  when 
the  "  Mysterious  Stranger,"  (a  wicked 
falsehood  deliberately  made  by  them,)  ap- 
peared. Mrs.  Salisbury  and  Mrs.  Emma 
Smith  are  both  right  upon  the  spot  then, 
and  know  who  visit  there,  and  no  such 
person  as  Sidney  Rigdon  or  any  other  mys- 
terious stranger,  is  about  their  place,  or 
visiting  with  Joseph  Smith.  Braden  is 
caught  here  and  he  knows  it;  that  is  the 
reason  he  charges  against  the  positive 
knowledge  and  testimony  of  Mrs.  Salis- 
bury. 

Mr.  Smith  receives  the  plates  in  Septem- 
ber of  this  year,  and  a  few  months  after  he 
got  them,  he  was  compelled  through  the 
persecution  of  those  who  were  trying  to  get 
them  from  him,  to  go  elsewhere  for  a  time, 
and  he  goes  to  his  wife's  father's  place  in 
Pennsylvania:  (the  same  from  which  they 
say  he  stole  his  wife.)  The  lies  of  Smith's 
enemies  are  so  thick  about  this  time  that  a 
man  in  that  country  could  hear  anthing  he 
wanted  to.  While  here  also,  the  history 
states: 

"  We  had  been  threatened  with  being  mobbed,  from 
time  to  time,  and  this  too,  by  professors  of  religion. 
And  their  intentions  of  mobbing  us  were  only  coun- 
teracted by  the  influence  of  my  wile's  father's  family, 
(under  divine  Providence.)  who  had  become  very 
friendlvtom'e,  and  who  were  opposed  to  mobs,  and  were 
willinsr  that  I  should  continue  the  work  of  translation 
without  interruption ;  and  therefore,  offered  and  prom- 
ised us  protection  from  all  unlawful  proceedings  as 
far  as  in  them  lay." 

It  will  do  well  to  think,  my  friends,  of 
the  "  Screen  and  blanket"  stories,  the 
'/peep  stones,"  the  story  he  has  told  of 
11  Smith  being  shut  up  in  a  cave,"  and  all 
such  ridiculous  stuff  set  afloat  by  the 
"  high-toned"  gentlemen,  who  gave  infor- 
mation to  Hulburt,  Howe,  Tucker,  et  al.; 
and  then,  find  him  down  at  his  wife's 
father's,  (Mr.  Hale's),  steadly  and  persist- 
ently doing  his  work,  right  in  the  house  of 
those  who  did  not  believe  with  him  and 
who  were  terribly  prejudiced  against  hia 
work. 

Here  is  where  Oliver  Cowdery  visited  him 
and  wrote  for  him,  right  in  the  house  of  Mr. 
Hale  for  weeks — from  the  15th  of  April  to 
the  1st  of  June.  About  the  1st  of  June  of 
this  year  by  reason  of  the  continued  and 
increased  persecution  in  the  neighborhood 
of  his  wife's  father,  he  was  compelled  to  go 
to  another  place.  This  he  found  for  a  time 
at  a  gentleman's  by  the  name  of  Whitmer, 
and  from  here  he  returned  home  to  his 
father's  at  Manchester,  New  York.  The 
records  agree  then.  His  home  wasat  his 
father's,  and  he  was  here  in  1829,  when  the 
manuscript  was  given  to  the  printer,  and 
remained  till  1830,  but  in  the  spring  of  1830 
left  Manchester  and  returned  to  Whitmer's. 
What  does  the  witness  Mrs.  Salisbury 
say: 

"That  she  knew  the  friends  of  the  family  and  the 
••  friends  and  acquaintances  of  Joseph  Smith,  her 
brother,  who  visited  at  her  father's  house.  That 
prior  to  the  letter  part  of  the  year  1830,  there  was  no 
person  who  visited  with,  or  was  an  acquaintance  of, 
or  called  upon  the  said  family,  or  any  member  there- 
of, to  my  knowledge,  by  the  name  of  Sidney  Rigdon." 

Will  you  again  Mr.  Braden  insult  common 


decency  by  saying  she  lied,  and  is  contra- 
dicted by  all  others?  Or  that  she  did  not 
tell  the  truth  and  the  whole  truth?  Bring 
forward  some  of  your  strong  evidence,  if  you 
have  so  much  that  is  contradictory  and  let 
us  hear  it  read.  This  lady  does  not  pretend 
that  she  was  with  her  brother  all  of  this 
time,  every  day  or  month.  But  that  at  her 
father's  house  was  her  brother's  home  and 
the  place  where  he  brought  his  friends  ;  was 
there  the  greater  part  of  the  time  himself, 
and  she  says,  "that  to  the  extent  of  her 
knowledge,  no  such  person  as  Sidney  Rig- 
don was  known  to  the  family  or  any  mem- 
ber of  the  same." 

Here  then,  is  the  positive  and  direct 
knowledge  that  there  was  no  such  person 
as  Tucker  tried  by  deception  and  inuendo 
to  make  the  people  believe  of  a  "mysterious 
stranger,"  being  at  the  residence  of  the  old 
gentleman  Smith  or  an  acquaintance  of 
Joseph  Smith. 

Here  then,  are  the  positive  and  certain 
declarations  of  Sidney  Rigdon,  P.  P.  Pratt, 
Catherine  Salisbury,  Emma  Smith  and 
David  Whitmer  upon  the  question  as  to 
whether  Rigdon  was  ever  an  acquaintance 
of  the  family  of  Mr.  Smith,  and  knew  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  except  as  a  rumor  in  the 
world,  possibly,  as  many  other  people  prior 
to  its  publication,  and  they  all  agree  that 
he  was  not  known  to  the  family  or  the 
translator  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  in  any 
sense. 

Add  to  this  the  statement  of  Braden 's 
•witness,  Gilbert,  who  said  in  my  pres- 
ence, that  he  had  tried  for  fifty  years 
or  near  that  long  to  find  out  something  that 
would  connect  Rigdon  and  Smith  together 
in  some  way,  he  living  at  Palmyra,  N.  Y.t 
all  this  time  as  shown  in  his  testimony,  and 
who  stated  at  the  same  time,  that  "they 
could  not  find  out  that  Rigdon  was  ever 
about  here  or  in  this  state  until  sometime  in 
the  fall  of  of  1830,"  and  it  makes  a  clear  and 
positive  case  against  his  Spaulding  story. 
Compare  my  testimony  upon  this  point  now, 
with  the  loose  statements  got  up  by  Howe 
and  Hulburt  and  peddled  by  Braden  here, 
and  you  have  the  actual  status  of  the  case. 

These  tales  and  stories  when  summed  up 
are  truly  but  tersely  put  by  a  writer  who 
has  lately  canvassed  them  as  follows  : 

"Rev.  Kirk  says  that  Dr.  Winters  told  him  that  Mr. 
Rigdon  told  him— 

Dr.  Winters'  daughter  says  her  father  said  that  Rig- 
don got  Spaulding's  manuscript — 

Rev.  Bonsall  heard  Dr.  Winters  say  so  and  so — 

And  the  impression  of  these  three  is  that  Dr  Wintert 
wrote  out  his  recollections — and  therefore  of  course  he 
did. 

Mrs.  Amos  Dunlap  saw  Rierdon  reading  a  manuscript, 
therefore  it  was  the  Spaulding  Romance. 

Pomery  Tucker  says  a  mysterious  stranger  visits  Jo- 
seph Sm'ith,  therefore  Sidney  Rigdon  is  the  man. 

Mrs.  Horace  Eaton  makes  use  of  a  similar  statement 
ssumiiig  it  as  a  matter  of  course." 

These,  with  what  Tucker  said  some  one 
else  said,  and  all  of  which  Hulburt  and 
Howe  got  up,  is  Braden's  stock  in  trade, 
and  the  only  things  offered  to  prove  this 
Spaulding  Romance. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  there  is  anyone  in 
this  audience,  or  any  person  outside,  who 
shall  hereafter  be  found  with  these  facts  in 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


137 


their  possession,  still  trying1  to  gossip  the 
Spaulding  story  down  people's  throats,  it 
will  be  because  they  are  wholly  given  over 
to  evil,  and  terribly  addicted  to  that  kind 
of  a  business. 

To  such,  I  would  advise  in  the  language 
of  the  apostle  Paul:  "But  refuse  profane 
and  old  wives'  fables,  [gossip  of  the  'old 
neighbors,'  silly  fables  or  falsehoods,]  and 
exercise  thyself,  rather  unto  Godliness."  , 
1  Tim.  4: 7. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  you  have  now 
found  what  there  is  in  fact  to  this  Spanld- 
ingtale.  I  have  carefully  examined  this 
thing,  although  I  need  not  have  noticed  it 
in  order  to  have  maintained  successfully 
the  proposition.  I  have  done  it,  because  I 
knew  it  to  be  the  means  hy  which  satan 
sought  to  blind  the  eyes  of  the  people  by 
gossip,  and  story,  and  tale  and  falsehood, 
to  prevent  them  from  honestly  investigat- 
ing this  book  in  the  manner  God  wants 
them  to  investigate  all  things. 

But  what  has  he  proven  as  a  fact  of  thia 
story? 

Did  he  prove  that  Solomon  Spaulding 
ever  wrote  such  a  manuscript  as  was  that 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon? 

Has  he  sustained  the  burden  of  proof, 
showing  that  Sidney  Rigdon  and  Joseph 
Smith  were  ever  acquainted  in  any  way  till 
after  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon? 

Has  it" been  shown  that  Rigdon  was  ever 
known  to  Spaulding  in  Pittsburg? 

Did  he  prove  that  Sidney  Rigdon  took 
the  manuscript  in  order  to  start  a  church? 

Has  he  proved  that  Rigdon,  in  fact,  ever 
knew  anything  of  what  the  Book  of  Mor- 
was,  till  it  was  presented  to  him  by  P.  P. 
Pratt,  November,  1830? 

You  know  all  of  these  questions  must  be 
answered  in  the  negative. 

The  only  thing  he  has  fairly  proven  with 
regard  to  this  Spaulding  story  to  my  mind, 
is  the  fact,  that  he  had  no  evidence  when 
he  began. 

He  refused  to  try  to  answer  my  arguments 
and  struck  out  upon  his  alibi,  where  the 
burden  of  proof  fell  upon  him,  and  his  alibi 
has  gone  down  and  left  him  sitting  with 
nothing  under  him.  But  he  is  still  plucky, 
and  up  and  attacks  the  Book  of  Mormon 
for  what  he  deems  objectionable  in  it.  This 
is  a  proper  way  to  debate ;  and  if  he  can 
find  anything  bad  in  it,  let  him  turn  it  out 
here.  I  shall  not  complain  so  he  don't  mis- 
quote, or  mis-state  the  book. 

He  has  made  a  few  Bible  objections  which 
I  shall  notice  in  this  connection. 

Isaiah  lfi:8,  he  says,  "Refers  to  the  disper- 
sion of  the  Moabites."  But  why  does  he 
say  so?  To  whom  does  the  prophet  re- 
fer as  leaving  this  land  as  being  the  "vine 
of  Sibmah;"— "principal  plants?"  The  peo- 
ple who  were  the  desire  of  the  Lord  ;  pleas- 
ant to  him?  Will  he  say  what  people  of  the 
land  of  Moab  was  referred  to?  There  were 
many. 

Jeremiah  31,  "  Refers  to  the  dispersion  of 
Israel  in  the  Assyrian  empire,"  he  says. 
But  what  right  has  he  to  say  so?  The  proph- 


ecy is  emphatically  against  such  an  idea. 
It  says,  "Behold,  I  will  bring  them  from 
the  north  country,  and  gather  them  from 
the  coasts  of  the  earth."  Neither  of  these 
places  refer  particularly  to  Assyria. 

Isaiah  11:11,  he  takes  up  and  quotes  just 
part  of  the  verse,  and  says  :  "This  shows 
it  refers  to  the  Israelites  in  the  Assyrian 
empire."  Had  he  quoted  the  verse  it  would 
have  been  sufficient  to  prove  him  wrong 
without  a  word  from  me.  Notice,  while  I 
read  :  "From  Assyria,  and  from  Egypt,  and 
from  Pathros,  and  from  Cush,  and  from 
El  am,  and  from  Shinar,  and  from  Hamath, 
and  from  the  islands  of  the  sea."  (12,  verse). 
"And  he  shall  set  up  an  ensign  for  the  na- 
tions, and  shall  assemble  the  outcasts  of 
Israel,  and  gather  together  the  dispersed 
of  Judah  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth." 
Was  it  indeed  limited  to  Assyria?  Is  this 
the  best  be  can  do  towards  a  refutation  of 
my  positions? 

He  takes  up  what  he  considers  the  pet 
passage  of  Mormonism,  Ezekiel  37,  and 
thinks  to  make  you  believe  that  staff,  rod 
and  stick  are  used  interchangeably  in  the 
Bible  and  mean  power.  I  know  we  read  of 
the  rod  of  Aaron  and  scepter  of  Judah,  but 
they  are  in  no  way  used  in  the  sense  of  a 
stick.  We  can  well  speak  of  the  scepter  of 
the  king  as  meaning  power,  but  not  the 
stick  of  the  king  as  meaning  power.  The 
words  are  not  used  interchangeably  in  the 
English,  neither  are  the  originals  in  the 
Hebrew  so  used  in  a  single  instance.  But 
in  his  interpretation  he  overlooks  entirely 
the  writing  upon  the  sticks  which  I  partic- 
ularly called  attention  to.  Did  this  mean 
the  kingdoms  too?  Give  us  an  exposition 
once  or  confess  you  cannot.  But  read  it  now 
substituting  kingdom  for  stick,  and  you 
have  the  ridiculous  position  of  uniting  the 
kingdoms  in  the  19th  verse,  and  uniting 
them  again  in  the  21st,  without  any  idea  of 
the  writing  upon  the  stick  or  kingdom. 

Now  I  shall  answer  the  objection  made  by 
him,  that  none  of  Ephraim  came  to  America. 
How  does  he  know?  Well,  he  says  the 
Book  of  Mormon  says  they  were  of  the 
tribe  of  Manasseh.  Mr.  Smith,  he  thinks, 
(or  rather  the  equestrian  Ahasuerus,  Rig- 
don), made  a  great  mistake  here.  If  Mr. 
Smith  had  just  sent  over  to  Andover,  or 
down  to  Hiram,  or  waited  till  the  endow- 
ment of  Bethany,  before  committing  him- 
self, it  would  have  been  all  right.  But  he 
thinks  he  is  clearly  caught  here.  Let  us 
examine  the  position :  Does  the  Book  of 
Mormon  say  all  who  came  to  this  continent 
were  of  the  tribe  of  Manassah?  No,  it  does 
not.  But  it  says  Lehi  was,  and  that  is 
enough  for  Braden.  He  can  soon  make  the 
objection.  His  objection  is,  then,  that  the 
book  of  Mormon  did  not  trace  Ephraim 
here  by  lineage.  But  had  it  done  so  an 
objection  would  clearly  have  lain  against 
it,  as  we  shall  see  from  the  prophecies. 

It  is  written  in  Hosea  v.  14 :  "  For  I  will 
be  unto  Ephraim  as  a  lion,  and  as  a  young 
lion  to  the  house  of  Judah ;  I,  even  I,  will 
tear  and  go  away;  I  will  take  away  and 
none  shall  rescue  him." 


138 


THE  BRADEN-AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


H«?re  the  thought  is  presented  by  the  pro- 
phet thai;  Ephraim,  for  some  cause  or  the 
othe^,  is  to  be  broken  up,  torn  to  pieces, 
scattered.  By  turning  to  verse  3,  of  the 
same  chapter  we  will  readily  discover  the 
reason  icr  this,  which  is  clearly  on  account 
of  their  evils  and  abominations.  In  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  vii.  15,  the  Lord 
says  :  "  And  I  will  cast  you  out  of  my  sight 
as  I  have  cast  out  all  your  brethren,  even 
the  whole  seed  of  Ephraim."  It  is  clear 
from  this  instruction  that  Ephraim  had, 
brought  upon  him  a  great  and  terrible  judg- 
ment  by  reason  01  his  rebellion  and  trans- 
gressions. 

What  was  the  penalty  to  be  ?  Utter  de- 
struction— annihilation  ?  O,  no.  Turn  with 
me  tor  the  answer  to  Hosea  ix.  11,  12.  The 
Lord  there  saj's:  "As  for  Ephraim,  their 
glory  shall  fly  away  like  a  bird,  from  the 
birth,  and  from  the  womb,  and  from  the 
conception.  Though  they  bring  up  their 
children,  yet  will  I  bereave  them,  that 
there  shall  not  be  a  man  left.  Yea,  woe 
also  to  them  when  I  depart  from  them  !  " 

Here  the  problem  of  .Ephraim  is  made 
more  plain.  "Their  glory,''  as  a  people  is 
at  some  time  and  in  somti  way  to  be  taken 
away.  They  were  to  be  taken  as  from  early 
birth  and  separated  one  from  another,  and 
thus  destroyed  as  a  nation,  as  predicted  by 
the  prophet  and  scattered  among  the 
people.  Ibid.  7:8.  "F.phraim,  he  hath 
mixed  himself  among  thw  people ;  Ephraim 
is  a  cake  not  turned."  Evidently  not  well 
baked  then,  so  when  taken  up,  it  is  readily 
broken  to  pieces;  or,  as  in  verse  11,  pre- 
figured, he  falls  apart  of  himself.  "Epbraim 
also  is  a  silly  dove  without  heart ;  they  call 
to  Egypt ;  they  go  to  Assyria."  His  attach- 
ments are  to  be  broken  and  he  left  to 
wander  everywhere,  and  not  seek  a  place 
with  any  one  particular  people.  Mixed  in 
Egypt  and  Assyria  his  blood  will  afterwards 
not  only  be  found  among  the  tribes,  but 
among  the  Gentile  nations  also. 

Ephraim  is  thus  set  forth  in  the  prophetic 
history  of  the  Bible  ;  and  yet,  the  objection 
is  made  by  my  opponent,  and  was  long 
before  made  by  John  Hyde,  and  other  short 
sighted  theologians,  that  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  the  line  or  lineage  of  Ephraim  is 
not  traced  to  America,  therefore,  it  is  a 
terrible  blunder.  Ah!  out  the  blunder  is 
again  upon  the  side  of  these  self-constituted 
critics. 

Had  the  tribe  been  traced  by  lineage, 
there  would  have  been  a  conflict  with  the 
prophecies.  The  Lord  does  not  contradict 
himself  in  his  own  work,  that  is  quite  clear. 
Ephraim  then,  is  mixed  with  the  people 
everywhere ;  and  per  consequence  over  here, 
as  well  as  with  the  other  nations.  Turning 
to  the  Book  of  Mormon,  I  find  that  witn 
Lehi  who  came  to  this  country,  there  was 
the  family  of  Ishmael,  and  Zoram ;  and 
although  it  had  been  common  in  Jerusalem 
to  keep  the  genealogy  of  all  the  people,  it 
eeems  none  was  kept  of  these.  Why,  we 
are  not  informed  ;  nevertheless,  we  are  in- 
formed that  Ephraim  should  not  be  able  to 
keep  his  lineage  or  "glory,"  nor  even  desire 


to  do  so,  but  that  he  should  be  "mixed 
among  the  people." 

So  it  was  that  when  Mulok  came  out  from 
Jerusalem  he  brought  "a  company"  with 
him,  but  the  lineage  of  the  company  is  not 
given.  However,  we  are  plainly  informed 
in  the  book  that  the  descendants  of  Joseph 
in  Egypt  were  upon  this  land  ;  "of  the  seed 
of  Joseph,"  and  not  simply  through  Manas- 
seh.  And  in  Genesis,  49th  «hapter,  it  reads, 
"  whose  branches, "  not  branch,  bub 
"branches,"  (daughters),  "run  over  the 
wall" — "pass  co  the  utmost  bounds  of  the- 
everlasting  hills,  above,"  (over,  beyond), 
the  blessing  of  my  progenitors,  of  Abraham 
and  Isaac.  Both,  also,  as  spoken  of  by 
Moses  in  Deuteronomy,  go  to  the  promised 
land  and  inherit  together;  he  sets  this  out 
in  the  blessing,  which  we  have  shown  could 
only  refer  to  the  land  of  America.  In  Gene- 
sis 48th,  they  are  made  "to  grow  into  a 
multitude  in  themidstof  the  earth."  In  the 
Book  of  Mormon  we  find  them  traced  here 
through  the  older  brother,  Manasseh,  who 
had  not  lost  the  birth-right;  but  Ephraim 
as  is  clearly  shown  by  the  prophets  would 
be  the  case,  is  yet,  "mixed  among  the 
people  ;"  and  hence,  his  lineage  not  traced. 

Then  the  book  is  still  fonnd  to  accord  with 
the  Bible  and  truth,  notwitstanding  the  ob- 
jections of  some  of  the  self-wise  of  the  age. 
In  the  last  days,  Epbraim  is  to  come  out 
from  among  the  people,  and  do  hjs  work 
and  in  his  hand,  in  the  inauguration  of  this 
work  is  the  "stick  of  Joseph,"  the  "En- 
sign," which  is  to  be  put  with  the  Bible,  or 
"stick  of  Judah,"  and  with  the  two,  as  with 
the  power,  or  "horns  of  the  unicorn,"  "he 
shall  push  the  people  together  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth."  Hence,  in  speaking  of  the 
gospel  work  of  restoration  in  the  last  days, 
the  prophet  Jeremiah,  says  :  "They  shall 
come  with  weeping, and  with  supplications 
will  I  lead  them:  I  will  cause  them  to  walk 
by  the  rivers  of  waters  in  a  straight  way, 
wherein  they  shall  not  stumble.  For,  I  am 
a  father  to  Israel  and  Ephraim  is  my  first 
born."  Ephraim  is  to  be  first  in  the  work  in 
the  last  time ;  he  never  has  been  before  f 
but  his  lineage  being  lost,  when  he  is 
brought  to  light  it  will  be  as  in  the  time  of 
Nehemiah,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
a  prophet  standing  up  with  the  Urim  and 
Thummim.  The  Psalmist  in  the  80th  num- 
ber, exclaims  aright  then,  when  he  says: 
"Give  ear,  O  Shepherd  of  Israel,  thou  that 
leadest  Joseph  like  a  flock  ;  Thou  that  dwel- 
lest  between  the  cherubim,  shine  forth.  Be- 
fore Ephraim  and  Benjamin  and  Manasseh 
stir  up  thy  strength,  and  come  and  save 
us." 

This  part  of  the  work  of  Ephraim  with 
others  i-i  so  plain  that  it  is  hardly  possible 
to  go  amiss  if  you  take  the  Bible  for  your 
guide.  And  the  prophecies  are  fulfilled  in 
every  condition,  so  far  as  the  work  has  pro- 
gressed, in  the  coming  forth  of  the  BOOK  of 
Mormon.  Here  is  where  Mr.  Braden  rested 
his  great  objection  to  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
and  his  objection  to  the  application  of  the 
prophecy  in  the  37th  of  Ezekiel  to  that  book. 

Now,  I  want  to  see  him  stand  up  to  the 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


139 


work  and  answer  me  upon  this,  if  he  can. 
There  is  an  issue  here,  and  if  he  can  show 
that  I  am  wro  >g  in  my  position  of  Ephraiin 
being  "mixed  among  the  people,"  and  "scat- 
tered.upon  all  the  mountains  of  Israel :  upon 
the  face  of  the  whole  earth,"  but  to  be  re- 


vealed in  the  last  day  by  the  light  of  rev- 
elation   to   inaugurate  and    "push   to  the 
ends  of  the  earth"   the  work  of  salvation 
among  the  people,  let  him  do  so. 
(Time  called.) 


MR.   BRADEN'S    THIRTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :  My  opponent  quotes  from 
the  Book  of  Mormon  the  declaration  that 
men  will  say  in  regard  to  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, "  We  have  the  Bible  and  that  is  suffi- 
cient." There  is  no  prophesy  in  that,  for 
the  Disciples  had  been  saying  that  to  Rig- 
don,  the  author  of  the  book,  for  years,  when 
he  was  trying  to  prepare  them  to  accept 
new  revelations  and  his  book.  The  word 
"Bible"  was  first  applied  to  the  scrip- 
tures in  the  fourth  century  by  Chrysostom. 
We  have  here  a  Nephite  in  America  using 
it  hundreds  of  years  before — another  mira- 
cle. As  I  have  never  read  a  word  that 
Howe  said,  and  have  not  made  him  a  wit- 
ness, Kelley's  attacks  on  Howe's  analysis 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  nonsensical 
waste  of  time.  As  a  lawyer  will  he  tell  me 
what  effect  his  attacks  on  Howe's  analysis 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  has  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  witness  recorded  in  another 
part  of  the  book  ?  I  have  sent  for  legal  evi- 
dence that  T.  P.  Baldwin  was  Judge  of  one 
of  the  courts  of  Wayne  county,  N.  Y.,  in 
1833.  When  it  comes  I  will  settle  that 
cavil  of  my  opponent.  I  have  explained 
that  Spaulding  concealed  from  his  wife  and 
daughter  his  purpose  to  publish  his  book, 
and  that  he  told  his  creditors  that  he  in- 
tended to  publish  it  and  pay  his  debts. 
Mrs.  Eichbaum,  clerk  in  the  post  office  in 
Pittsburg,  from  1812  to  1816  inclusive,  testi- 
fies that  Rigdon  was  in  Pittsburg  in  1814-15, 
or  during  the  time  the  Spaulding  manu- 
script was  taken  to  Patterson's  office  ;  that 
he  was  learning  the  tanner's  trade  and  was 
intimate  with  Lambdin,  one  of  Patterson's 
printers,  and  was  about  the  office  so  much 
that  Engles,  the  foreman,  complained  of  it. 
That  settles  that  matter. 

My  opponent  said  last  night  that  Mrs. 
Davidson  said  there  were  passages  of  scrip- 
ture in  her  husband's  Manuscript  Found. 
She  does  not.  She  says  the  passages  of 
scripture  and  religious  talk  were  added  to 
the  romance  to  get  up  the  Mormon  fraud. 
I  have  proved  that  Spaulding  wrote  sev- 
eral manuscripts,  and  my  opponent's  jabber 
on  the  assumption  that  he  wrote  only  one 
is  absurd.  His  attack  on  the  testimony  I 
presented  is  absurd  and  puerile.  My  oppo- 


nent seems  to  think  that  his  course  in  inter- 
viewing parties,  and  then  going  off  and 
writing  off  what  he  says  they  said,  was  far 
more  honorable  than  Mr.  Thome's  course  in 

foing  to  the  parties  and  having  them  go 
efore  a  magistrate  and  testify  in  their  own 
words  and  say  what  they  pleased.  The 
witnesses  swear  that  he  falsified  their  state- 
ments. ,He  objects  that  Major  Gilbert  does 
not  specify  in  what  particulars  he  is  mis- 
represented. It  was  not  necessary,  for,  he 
says,  it  is  all  misrepresentation,  deliberate 
falsehood.  He  objects  that  there  is  no  date 
to  the  testimony  of  Conrieaut  witnesses. 
There  is  none  to  most  of  what  he  reads. 
There  is  neither  date  nor  place  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  witnesses  for  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon ;  and  they  do  not  si<m  independent  in- 
dividual statements  as  these  witnesses-  do, 
but  a  joint  statement  written  out  for  them 
by  Imposter  Joe.  Cannot  my  opponent  see 
that  such  pettifogging  is  putting  into  my 
hands  a  club  that  will  knock  out  all  the 
brains  he  has  got. 

Campbell  says  Bentley  is  mistaken  Con- 
cerning one  of  the  teachings  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  therefore  Bentley's  testimony 
concerning  what  Rigdon  told  him  is  worth- 
less. Such  talk  is  twaddle.  Campbell  asked 
Bentley  whether  he  remembered  a  certain 
conversation  and  what  he  remmebered  of  it ; 
therefore  Campbell's  testimony  is  worthless. 
More  bosh.  I  have  said  that  a  man 
may  preach  the  teachings  of  Christ,  or 
steal  them  and  present  them  to  the  world 
as  a  revelation  and  be  a  hypocrite.  He 
quotes  "  If  any  man  abide  in  the  teachings 
of  Christ,  etc."  Yes,  abide.  What  is  it  to 
abide  in  such  teachings  ?  To  steal  it  and 
present  it  to  the  world  as  a  revelation  in 
a  lying  fraud,  or  live  it  out  in  life?  For 
pity's  sake  stop  that  idiocy.  He  cannot 
make  the  Bible  and  the  Book  of  Mormon 
parallel  cases.  But  few  of  the  writers  of 
the  Bible  tell  us  they  were  inspired.  But 
few  tell  us  their  books  were  written  by 
divine  command.  None  of  the  books  were 
revised  by  inspiration  or  by  Jesus  himself. 
They  were  written  on  perishable  material ; 
had  to  be  copied  by  uninspired  men :  they 
were  not  preserved  by  miracle,  and  they 
were  translated  by  uninspired  learning. 


140 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


The  Book  of  Mormon  was  written  by 
men  by  divine  command  and  most  of  them 
Bay  they  were  inspired  in  engraving  on  the 
plates.  They  were  preserved  by  miracle. 
Revealed  to  Smith  by  miracle.  Translated 
by  inspiration.  Given  word  by  word  to 
Smith,  by  the  Lord,  in  a  miracle;  and  the 
witnesses  declare  that  the  voice  of  God 
declared  to  them  that  the  translation  was 
correct,  and  the  Book  of  Mormon  true. 
There  is  no  work  of  man  here.  It  is  all  the 
work  of  the  Lord.  If  there  are  mistakes 
they  are  the  mistakes  of  the  Lord.  I  said 
the  materials  used  by  the  Israelites  in 
writing  their  books  were  papyrus,  parch- 
ment rolls — so  the  Bible  declares.  His 
retort  is  absurd.  Because  the  American 
people  engrave  on  gold,  or  stone,  on 
metal,  wood,  etc.,  the  material  on  which 
we  write  is  metal,  stone,  etc.  Bosh.  The 
use  of  the  word  "  Jew,'  is  a  blunder  of  the 
translator,  as  much  as  for  a  Frenchman  to 
call  all  who  spoke  the  English  language 
"  Yanks,"  from  the  days  of  William  the 
Conquerer.  He  has  found  "  steel"  in  the 
Bible  and  he  can  find  "  farthing"  also. 
Bibical  scholars  say  that  steel  was  un- 
known among  the  Israelites  until  shortly 
before  Chi  is-t.  If  the  Gospel  was  preached 
to  Abraham,  it  was  not  all  of  the  teachings 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  the  exact 
words  they  used.  The  New  Testament 
says  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  given  in  the 
name  of  Christ  until  after  he  was  glorified. 
The  Book  of  Mormon  says  he  was. 

We  will  notice  an  item  omitted  from  the 
proper  place.  The  Book  of  Doctrines  and 
Covenants  says  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
"  Condemnation  rests  and  will  rest  on  all 
"  who  do  not  repent  and  remember  the 
"New  Covenant,  even  the  Book  of  Mor- 
"  moo."  Again.  "Behold  I  say  unto  you 
"  that  all  old  covenants  have  been  done 
"  away  in  this  thing"  (the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon) "and  this"  (the  Book  of  Mormon) 
"is  a  new  and  everlasting  conveuant." 
Mormon  revelation  declares  that  the 
Book  of  Mormon  is  a  new  and  everlasting 
covenant  doing  away  Christ's  dispensation 
and  Christ's  covenant.  The  Book  of  Doc- 
trines and  Convenants  declares  that  the 
Book  of  Mormon  "  Is  the  fulness  of  th«» 
Gospel."  The  Bible— Christ's  Gospel — was 
imperfect — did  not  contain  the  fulness  of 
the  Gospel.  The  Book  of  Mormon  de- 
clares that  the  Romish  Church  "  took 
"  away  from  the  Gospel  many  parts  which 
"are  plain  and  precious,  and  also  many 
"covenants  of  the  Lord  have  they  taken 
"  away."  It  declares  that  "  it"  (the  Book 
of  Mormon)  "  makes  known  the  plain  and 
"  precious  things  that  have  been  taken 
"away."  It  places  the  Book  of  Mormon 
above  the  Bible,  the  New  Testament  and 
above  the  covenant  of  Christ.  Such  are  the 
the  blasphemous  claims  of  this  fraud. 
Kelley  dues  not  present  them  to  you.  He 
"  roars  you  gently  as  a  sucking  dove."  He 
is  giving  you  milk  such  as  becomes  baoes. 
I  give  you  the  strong  meat  of  Mor- 
monism. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  tells  us  that  if  Ad- 


am had  not  transgressed  and  fallen  h» 
would  have  had  no  children.  The  Bible- 
says  God  commanded  him  to  be  fruitful. 
According  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  God'a 
first  command  to  man  was  one  that  he  could 
not  obey  unless  he  sinned.  If  he  did  not 
sin  he  must  forever  disobey  the  first  com- 
mand God  laid  on  him.  It  says  if  Adam 
had  not  sinned  he  would  have  known  no 
joy  for  he  knew  no  misery.  Then  God  put 
man  in  Eden  with  everything  that  could 
cause  joy  and  gave  to  man  no  power  to  enjoy 
it.  Also  unless  persons  suffer  misery  they 
can  have  no  joy.  The  angels  that  are  bless- 
ed suffer  misery,  for  if  they  do  not  thev 
have  no  joy.  It  further  says:  "They  diet 
no  good  for  thy  knew  no  sin."  Then  the 
angels  that  have  not  sinned  do  no  good  ? 
An  intelligence  can  do  no  good  till  he  si  us  r 
Was  Adam  doing  uo  good  when  in  a  state- 
of  purity  he  obeyed  God's  commands?  If 
good  comes  through  sinning  then—  the  more 
Binning  the  more  good.  This  absurd  idea 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  in  flat  contradic- 
tion of  the  teachings  of  the  Bible.  There 
are  many  ideas  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
in  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  and 
in  the  interpolations  of  the  inspired  transla- 
tion that  are  plagiarized  from  fancies  of  the 
apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch. 

We  will  now  resume  our  analysis  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  We  are  told  on  page  517 
that  the  Asiatic  horsa,  ox  and  cow,  the 
same  blunder  as  in  the  case  of  the  Neph- 
ites,  the  sheep,  the  ass  and  swine  were 
common  in  America  thousands  of  years 
ago.  Science  declares  that  these  species  of 
animals  were  introduced  by  Columbus  and 
his  successors.  This  Israelite  writer  (as  ib 
is  claimed  he  is)  speaks  of  swine  as 
"good  for  the  use  of  man."  The  sodden  ig- 
norance of  the  fabricators  of  this  fraud  is 
beneath  contempt.  They  represent  the  Is- 
raelites as  living  in  the  midst  of  the  use  of 
the  Hebrew  and  using  the  hated  Egyptian, 
instead  of  their  sacred  Hebrew  for  which 
they  had  such  a  fanatical  love.  They  speak 
of  the  abhorred  swine  as  good  for  man's 
use.  They  trample  under  foot  every  great 
feature  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  impudent- 
ly tell  us  that  they  live  under  ic  and  obey  it. 

On  page  523,  Ether,  a  Jaredite,  whose  an- 
cestors came  to  America  800  years  before 
Abraham,  prophecies  in  the  exact  language 
of  the  Hebrew  letter,  a  thousand  years  be- 
fore it  was  written,  uses  the  language,  the 
exact  language  of  the  Bible,  of  which  his 
people  know  no  more  than  the  man  in  the 
moon,  and  preaches  the  gospel  to  these 
Jaredites  a  thousand  years  before  Christ. 
527,  Masonry  breaks  out  again.  529,  more 
deviltry  by  the'  Masons.  530,  the  wars 
caused  by  these  sons  of  Belial,  the  Masons, 
cause  the  slaughter  of  two  millions  of  men 
on  one  side.'  to  say  nothing  of  women  and 
children.  When  we  remember  that  all  the 
lives  lost  in  our  great  civil  war,  directly 
and  indirectly,  was  less  than  a  million,  and 
that  less  than  half  a  million  were  killed  or 
died  of  wounds,  we  can  form  some  estimate 
of  what  a  war  it  must  have  been  when  ten 
times  as  many  were  slain. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


141 


Then  the  two  contending  parties  arrayed 
themselves  against  each  other,  every  last 
man,  woman,  and  child,  and  baby,  with 
helmets,  swords  and  breast-plates.  What 
a  heroic  sight  to  see  children  and  babies 
armed  with  helmets,  swords  and  breast 
plates,  and  what  a  slaughter  they  made, 
no  doubt!  Then  they  pitched  in  every  last 
man.  woman  and  child  and  baby,  and  they 
"fit,''  and  they  "fit,"  and  they  "fit"  and 
they  "fit"  and  "fit \»  until  nobody  is 
left  but  Ether.  He  is  miraculously 
preserved  to  finish  some  plates  for 
Imposter  Joe.  Ether  does  not  know 
whether  he  will  be  translated,  which  would 
be  an  easy  job  judging  from  his  ethereal 
name,  or  stay  and  die  out  as  did  Moroni, 
his  copyist.  Thus  ends  the  history  of  these 
Jaredites  who  were  not  descendants  of 
Adam  or  Noah,  for  the  speech  of  their 
descendants  was  confounded  at  Babel  and 
the  speech  of  the  Jaredites  was  not  con- 
founded—  they  were  not  descendants  of 
Noah. 

Finally,  after  copying  on  nothing,  for  his 
plates  were  full  before  he  began,  and  he 
could  make  none,  and  from  uotning,  for 
Mormon  had  buried  everything  except  the 
plates  of  Ether,  which  he  never  had ; 
Moroni  whiles  away  his  time  in  writing  a 
liturgy  for  the  followers  of  Imposter  Joe. 
He  then  rehashes  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  in  a  sermon  about  faith f  hope 
and  love,  repeating  Paul's  language  in 
many  places.  It  looks  as  if  Rigdon  was 
trying  to  fix  up  his  book  so  that  he  could 
set  the  'New  Testament  as  much  in  the 
background,  as  the  New  sets  the  Old.  Then 
comes  the  miracle  of  miracles.  Mormon 
out  in  the  wilds  of  America,  "all  his  lone" 
as  Paddy  would  say,  on  pages  539,  540,  541. 
preaches  Sidney  Rigdon's  sermon  against 
infant  baptism  and  quotes  scores  of  passages 
and  phrases  from  the  New  Testament. 
What  an  insult  to  common  sense  to  ask  us 
to  believe  that  an  Israelite,  in  the  wilds  of 
America,  over  one  thousand  years  after 
his  people  had  any  communication  with 
the  old  continent  or  knew  about  its  troubles 
over  "infant  baptism,"  just  beginning, 
preached  in  America,  1400  years  before  Rig- 
don was  born,  Rigdon's  rant  against  infant 
baptism.  Mor'  ni,  alias  Rigdon,  closes  with 
one  of  Rigdon's  rhapsodies  of  exhortation 
in  which  (Sidney  mounts  King  AJiasuerus' 
horse  for  the  last  time  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, and  he  then  lets  his  Pegasus  rest 
until  he  joins  Imposter  Joe  in  Manchester, 
New  York,  in  December  1830.  Such  is  a 
mere  outline  of  the  countless  absurdities  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  "The  Fulness  of  the 
Gospel." 

We  will  now  call  attention  to  certain 
matters  that  require  more  space  than  we 
could  give  to  them  in  a  running  criticism. 
The  ancient  Israelites  believed  that  the 
earth  was  stationary  and  that  the  stars 
moved.  They  did  not  know  the  difference 
between  the  planets  and  fixed  stars. 
Inspiration  among  the  Israelites  never 
revealed  to  them  scientific  facts.  On  page 
286  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  Alma  a  Nephite 


nearly  2000  years  before  Copernicus  says 
"The  earth  and  its  motion  and  the  planets 
which  move  in  their  regular  form  declare 
there  is  a  God,"  a  prose  adaptation  of  Addi- 
son's  hymn.  Page  410  the  language  of  the 
Hebrew  poet  in  the  Book  of  Jasher  quoted 
in  Joshua  is  thus  commented  and  explain- 
ed. "If  the  Lord  say  to  the  earth  thou 
"  shalt  go  back  that  it  lengthen  out  theday, 
"we  know  that  it  is  done,  and  thus  accord- 
"ing  to  his  word  the  earth  goeth  back  and 
"  it  appeareth  to  men  that  the  sun  standeth 
"  still,  yea  and  behold  this  is  so  far  it  is  the 
"earth  that  moveth  and  not  the  sun."  It 
is  wonderful  how  much  more  than  their 
brethren  in  Palestine  Sidney's  Nephites 
and  Jaredites  always  knew.  Had  the 
Israelite  poet  been  one  of  Rigdon's  poets 
he  would  not  have  represented  Joshua  as 
commanding  the  sun  to  stand.  No  he 
would  have  expressed  himself  in  the  most 
approved  phraseology  of  modern  science 
although  his  language  would  have  been 
regarded  as  idiotic  falsehood  by  his  readers. 
Page  3  Lehi  says  he  left  Jerusalem  because 
the  Lord  commanded  him  to  do  so,  in  a 
dream.  Page  401Nephi  says  he  was  driven 
out  by  people.  Page  106  Nephi  says  he  and 
his  people  were  descendants  of  the  Jews. 
The  word  "  Jew"  is  a  nickname  as  much  as 
"  Yank"  and  the  word  from  which  it  is 
derived  was  not  applied  to  any  nation  until 
a  hundred  years  after  Nephi  left  Jerusalem 
and  the  nickname  was  not  used  until  mod- 
ern times.  Page  231  Amulek  declares  that 
Nephi  and  all  who  went  with  Lehi  were 
Manassehites  and  not  Jews  at  all.  Page 
375  we  are  told  that  the  devil  led 
Jared  and  his  people.  Page  502  we 
are  told  it  was  the  Lord.  Page  76  Jacob 
declares  that  the  Lord  told  him  America 
is  an  island.  Common  sense  says  it  is  a  con- 
tinent. Page  416  an  inspired  prophet  de- 
clares the  darkness  at  the  crucifixion  shall 
be  over  the  whole  earth  three  days  and  a 
subsequent  passage  declares  as  a  fact  f 
history  that  the  darkness  covered  the  whole 
earth  three  days.  The  Bible  says  it  was 
over  the  land  in  which  the  crucifixion  took 
place  and  only  three  hours.  John  the 
Baptist  declares  that  only  our  Savior  could 
give  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
that  it  was  future  in  his  day.  The  apostle 
declares  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  not  be 
given  in  the  name  of  Jesus  until  after  his 
ascension.  Our  Savior  so  declares.  A 
Nephite  prophet  hundreds  of  years  before 
the  birth  of  Jesus  says  of  his  brethren 
"  that  they  have  been  visited  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  have  conversed  with  angels  and 
been  spoken  to  by  the  voice  of  the  Lord : 
have  had  the  spirit  of  prophecy  and  the 
spirit  of  revelation,  and  many  spiritual 
gifts.  The  gift  of  speaking  with  tongues, 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  the  gift  of  translation."  A  more 
flat  contradiction  of  the  word  of  God  and 
the  Son  of  God  could  not  be  conceived. 
Page  19  and  20  we  are  told  Jesus  was  born 
at  Nazareth.  Page  223  at  Jerusalem.  The 
Bible  says  it  was  at  Bethlehem.  We  call 
yjur  attention  next  to  a  tissue  of  flat  con- 


142 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


tradictions.  Page  507  "Jared's  brother" 
(I  wish  Rigclon  had  given  that  fellow  a 
name  while  he  was  about  it)  "seals  up  his 
plates  and  interpreters  and  hides  them  up 
unto  the  Lord  and  they  are  not  to  go  forth 
until  the  Gentiles  exercise  faith  and  are 
clean  before  the  Lord."  That  time  has  not 
come  yet  for  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  to 
go  forth  in  an  age  of  apostacy,  unbelief, 
and  crime,  even  the  horrible  crime  of 
Masonry,  Page  523  Ether,  the  last  Jare- 
dite  writes  his  gold  plates.  Page  158  Limbi 
finds  them  and  breastplates  and  swords 
but  not  Jared's  plates  nor  any  interpreters. 
Mosiah  interprets  these  plates  of  Ether 
with  interpreters  handed  down  among  the 
Nephites  for  generations.  Page  2<)4 
Mosiah's  interpreters  were  handed  down  to 
Mormon.  Page  492  Mormon  buries  them 
with  over  twenty  other  relics,  and  hands 
only  "  the'-e  few  plates"  with  no  interpre- 
ters to  Moroni,  who  buries  ''these  few 
plates."  Smith  finds  not  only  "these  few 
plates"  which  Moroni  buried,  and  that  was 
all  that  he  buried,  but  he  finds  with  them 
Laban's  sword  that  was  not  buried  with 
them  and  was  buried  before  and  apart  from 
them.  Lehi's  brass  compass  which  was 
not  buried  with  them  and  was  buried 
before  and  apart  from  them  and  the  inter- 
preters of  Jared's  brother  that  no  Nephite 
or  any  one  else  ever  saw  or  can  have  until 
the  Gentiles  all  believe  and  are  clean  before 
the  Lord. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  teaches  that  God 
led  the  Manassehites  to  America  and  bless- 
od  them  far  above  Judah.  The  Bible  de- 
clares II  Kings  XVII,  18-20,  »  The  Lord 
rejected  all  the  seed  of  Israel  (Manasseh 
with  the  rest)  and  afflicted  them  and  deliv- 
ered them  to  the  spoilers  until  he  cast  them 
out  of  his  presence.  Therefore  the  Lord 
was  angry  with  Israel  and  removed  them 
out  of  his  sight.  There  was  none  left  but 
the  tribe  of  Judah  only."  You  can  believe 
the  Bible  or  the  Book  of  Mormon  one  or  the 
other  but  not  both. 

Mormons  quote  as  their  special  reliance 
the  prophecies  in  regard  to  Ephraim  ap- 
plying them  to  the  aborigines  of  America. 
According  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  there 
never  was  an  Ephraimite  in  America. 
Page  231.  The  Nephites  and  Lamauites 
were  Manassehites.  The  Zarahemlites  were 
of  the  seed  of  Zedekiah-Judahites.  There 
was  not  an  Ephraimite  on  the  continent. 
They  could  with  far  greater  propriety  quote 
the  prophecies  in  regard  to  Judah  for  some 
were  Judahites.  To  apply  to  Manassehites, 
the  prophecies  in  regard  to  Ephraim,  is 
as  gross  a  contradiction  as  to  apply  to 
these  Manassehites,  the  laws  for  the  Levites, 
as  these  Rigdonite  revelations  so  frequently 
do.  Page  271.  Alma  says  "  let  us  retain 
our  swords  that  they  be  not  stained  with 
the  blood  of  our  brethren  for  perhaps  if  we 
stain  our  swords  again  they  can  no  more  be 
washed  bright  through  the  blood  of  the 
Sou  of  our  God."  What  blasphemy ! 
Swords  washed  bright  through  the  blood  of 
the  Son  of  God.  The  blood  of  the  Sou  of 
God  a  polishing  powder.  Who  doubts  that 


that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  of  divine 
origin?  Page  437  we  are  told  that  Christ 
was  crucified  on  the  fourth  day  of  the  first 
month.  He  was  not  crucified  until  after 
the  passover,  which  was  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month,  and  was  really  crucified 
on  the  20th  day  of  the  month.  The  context 
declared  that  a  just  man  kept  this  record 
and  it  was  true.  Sidney  was  mistaken  that 
is  all.  Page  1.  We  are  told  that  Lehi  left 
Jerusalem  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  in  the 
first  year  of  his  reign.  If  we  add  the  70 
years  of  captivity,  which  began  with  Zede- 
kiah to  Daniels  483  years  we  have  553  years 
or  47  years  less  than  600.  If  we  put  the 
date  of  Christ's  birth  where  it  should  be 
we  have  over  50  years.  Sidney  is  mistaken 
again. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  flatly  contradicts 
the  Bible  in  its  stuff  about  the  Melchisedeo 
priesthood.  I.  The  Bible  clearly  teaches 
that  there  never  were  but  two  priests  of 
that  order,  Melchisedec  himself  and  Christ. 

II.  Melchisedek  officiated  before  the  Le- 
vitical  priesthood.  There  was  an  introduc- 
tion of  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  an  in- 
troduction of  the  law  of  Moses.  III.  Tb° 
Levitical  priesthood  under  the  order  of 
Aaron  was  abrogated  ;  Christ  is  priest,  and 
he  alone.  The  law  is  changed  from  the  law 
of  Moses  to  the  law  of  Christ.  IV.  Christ 
alone  is  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchise- 
dec. V.  He  was  not  priest  on  earth  but  is 
priest  in  heaven.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
makes  these  priesthoods  parallel,  and  talks 
of  innumerable  priests  of  the  order  of  Mel- 
chisedec. Mormons  appeal  to  the  fact  that 
Abel,  Noah,  Abraham,  Jacob,  Jethro  and 
Moses  offered  sacrifices.  That  does  not 
prove  that  they  were  priests  of  any  order. 
They  offered  sacrifices  as  patriarchs  and 
prophets  and  not  as  priests.  If  there  were 
any  Melchisedec  priests  it  was  only  those 
who  offered  sacrifices  before  the  Levitical 
priesthood  was  established ,  and  when  the 
law  was  changed  to  the  law  of  Moses  the 
priesthood  was  changed  to  the  Levitical 
priesthood.  Samuel  and  all  who  sacrificed 
after  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  estab- 
lished sacrificed  as  prophets.  They  are 
never  called  priests. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  tells  us  that  the 
Nephites  had  priests  of  the  Aaronic  order, 
for  they  were  consecrated  according  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  but  every  soul  of  them  was 
a  Manassehite,  and  not  a  Levite  among 
them,  although  the  law  of  Moses  punished 
severely  any  one  except  a  Levite  who  at- 
tempted to  officiate  as  priest.  The  Bible 
declares  that  Christ  did  not  ascend  to  hea- 
ven until  forty  days  after  his  resurrection, 
and  that  his  second  coming  is  yet  future— 
Heb.  ix.  28.  In  the  Book  of  Nephi  we  are 
told  that  Christ  descended  from  heaven 
and  visited  the  Nephites,  and  ascended  in  to 
heaven  again,  and  then  descended  and 
spent  three  days  with  the  Nephites.  Here 
we  have  a  second  and  a  third  coming  from 
heaven  before  the  Hebrew  letter  was  writ- 
ten, and  in  less  than  a  year  from  his  first 
ascension  into  heaven.  The  appearances  of 
our  Saviour  to  Paul  and  others  in  a  vision 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


143 


are  not  comings  direct  from  heaven  In  the 
flesh  as  he  appeared  to  the  Nephites — the 
manner  in  which  t_he  angels  declared  to  the 
Apostles  at  his  ascension  he  would  come  in 
his  second  coming. 

On  page  527,  Moroni,  a  Nephite  in  Amer- 
ica, who  knew  nothing  of  any  Hebrew  or 
Christian  scriptures  after  Jeremiah,  writes: 
"These  things  bring  to  pass  the  scripture 
which  saith,  'They  who  are  first  shall  be 
last,  and  they  who  are  last  shall  be  first.'  " 
Where  do  the  Scriptures  say  so?  Matthew 
xix.  30,  or  Luke  xiii.  30.  Did  Moroni,  a 
Nephite  in  America,  who  knew  nothing  of 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  write  that? 
Or  did  Rigdon,  when  he  was  revising  the 
manuscript  he  stole  from  Spaulding  to  make 
a  big  thing  out  of  it  in  the  shape  of  a  pre- 
tended new  revelation?  Page  498,  Moroni, 
alias  Rigdon,  writes  :  "  Do  we  not  read  that 
God  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  for- 
ever, and  that  in  him  is  no  variableness, 
neither  shadow  of  turning."  Yea,  verily, 
Sidney,  we,  you  and  your  readers  do  read 
such  language  in  Heb.  xiii.  8,  and  in  James 
1. 17,  but  no  person  in  America  1,000  years 


before  Columbus  ever  so  read.  Page  539: 
The  Holy  Ghost  says  to  Moroni,  "  Listen  to. 
the  wor'ds  of  Christ,"  and  then  we  have 
over  twenty  quotations  of  the  sentences  and 
phrases  from  the  New  Testament.  No, 
Sidney,  the  Holy  Ghost  never  said  that  to 
Mormon.  You  used  to  say  just  such  things 
to  your  hearers  in  your  sermon  on  infant 
baptism^  and  you  have  interpolated  your 
sermon  into  the  manuscript  you  stole  from 
Spaulding. 

Page  494,  Jesus  says  to  the  three  Nephites 
who  were  never  to  taste  death :  "  When  I 
come  in  my  glory  ye  shall  be  changed  from 
mortality  'to  immortality."  Positively  de- 
clares that  they  were  mortal  and  would  re- 
main mortal  until  he  came  in  his  glory.  In 
the  very  next  paragraph  Nephi  says  that 
whether  they  were  mortal  or  immortal  from 
their  transfiguration  he  does  not  know, 
After  recording  the  clear,  positive  declara- 
tion of  Jesus  that  they  were  mortal  and 
would  be  till  he  came  in  his  glory,  Nephi 
cooly  declares  that  he  did  not  know  whether 
Jesus  lied  or  not  i 


MR.  KELLEY'S  FOURTEENTH    SPEECH! 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :  I  will  first  notice  one  or  two 
things  in  the  statements  that  my  opponent 
has  just  made.  I  suppose  that  if  I  should 
ask  any  person  in  this  audience,  now  that 
they  have  just  listened  to  his  argument,  to 
state  a  single  objection  that  he  has  made 
against  the  Book  of  Mormon,  just  to  arise 
and  state  one  objection,  you  would  not  be 
able  to  do  it.  How  many  of  you  would? 
Why,  he  has  read  such  a  string  here  that 
you  cannot  understand  it,  so  far  as  making 
an  objection  is  concerned,  and  no  other  per- 
son, unless  he  would  take  weeks  and  weeks 
to  go  through  it,  or  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  book,  and  such  a  person  would  ask 
for  no  reply  on  my  part.  And  when  you 
see,  as  I  shall  show  you,  that  every  one  of 
those  supposed  objections  that  he  has  offered 
is  clearly  answered  in  the  book,  what  will 
you  think  of  the  objector?  The  book  itself 
answers  every  one  of  the  objections  that  he 
has  made,  which  I  will  show  if  I  have  time 
during  this  discussion,  noticing  each  one 
particularly.  Now,  what  is  the  proper 
manner  of  arguing  a  question?  I  will  call 
attention  to  this  again,  so  that  you  may  not 
forget  the  difference  between  argument  and 
the  simple  statement  of  something  that 
does  not  amount  to  an  argument.  If  he  can 
find  a  dozen  objections  to  that  book  that 
will  stand  the  test,  that  is  enough  to  send 


the  book  down.  Why  don't  he  make  his 
objections  fairly,  and  give  opportunity  of 
replying  to  them  ?  But  no,  such  a  couTtest 
don't  suit.  The  whole  object  seems  to  be  to 
lug  in  so  much  that  no  white  man  who  is 
sane,  nor  dark  man  either,  on  the  continent 
can  answer  them  all.  Well  now,  he  will 
find  out  that  Sidney  was  on  Ahasuerus's 
horse  all  the  time  when  he  tries  to  defeat 
the  question  in  that  way.  To-morrow  night, 
however,  I  will  answer  the  Gordian  Knot. 
Among  all  these  objections  there  was  a 
"  Gordian  Knot,"  you  know.  That  must 
be  answered.  That  was  a  strong  one !  Will 
he  give  up  when  that  is  severed  ?  It  will 
be  cut  in  twain ;  just  remember  that. 

The  objection  was  made  that  the  New 
Testament,  in  the  history  which  it  gives  of 
the  events  in  the  time  of  the  Savior,  sayg 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given, 
while  the  Book  of  Mormon,  he  states,  says 
it  was  given.  There  he  thinks  is  a  flat  con- 
tradiction. Well,  perhaps  somebody  in  the 
audience  who  has  never  read  the  Book  ot 
Mormon,  nor  the  New  Testament  but  very 
little,  may  think  there  is  a  contradiction 
here.  The  New  Testament  is  speaking 
about  a  particular  time  when  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  not  given  to  the  disciples  of  Jes'us,  viz : 
between  the  ministry  of  the  Savior  and  hia 
resurrection  and  ascension.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  is  speaking  of  a  time  long  prior  to 


144 


TILE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


the  time  when  Jesus  was  in  the  flesh  here. 
Will  he  take  the  ground  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  never  given  to  the  prophets  on 
the  Eastern  continent? 

Mr.  Braden:    Not  in  the  name  of  Christ. 

Mr.  Kelley :  In  what  name  was  it  given 
if  not  in  the  name  of  Christ?  Will  you 
answer  that?  Let  me  cite  you  an  example 
that  will  show  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
given.  Don't  you  remember  that  Saul  was 
among  the  prophets  at  one  time  when  this 
Holy  Spiri  t  was  given  to  them  ?  And  that  at 
another  the  seventy  elders  of  Israel  proph- 
esied when  the  Holy  Spirit  was  upon  them? 
The  same  Holy  Ghost,  too,  that  was  not  yet 
given,  as  the  term  is  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament scriptures.  And  did  I  not  quote 
last  night  whets  Peter  says,  "That  holy 
men  of  old  spake  as  they  were  moved  upon 
by  the  Holy  Ghost?"  Then  it  was  given 
before,  was  it  not?  If  you  meant  not 
through  Christ  when  you  said  that  the  Book 
of  Mormon  contradicted  the  New  Testament, 
why  didn't  you  say  not  through  Christ 
then? 

Mr.  Braden :    I  did. 

Mr.  Kelley :  We  will  see.  But  what  bet- 
ter does  that  make  it?  That  is  no  objection. 
The  Holy  Ghost  was  given  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment times  too,  and  people  possessed  it  and 
prophesied  by  reason  of  it  long  before 
Christ's  time  in  the  flesh  ;  and  if  it  was  not 
given  through  ChristI  suppose  it  was  given 
through  men,  just  common  men,  away  back 
there.  But  he  ought  to  know  that  he  who 
was  Ciirist  Jesus  in  the  flesh  was  the  same 
•who  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness. 
"  And  they  did  all  drink  of  that  spiritual 
rock,  which  rock  was  Christ,"  says  the 
Apostle  Paul,  and  this  was  when  they  were 
in  the  wilderness.  Yet  he  wants  to  make 
out  that  because  the  Book  of  Mormon  speaks 
of  men  being  blest  with  the  Holy  Ghost  be- 
fore the  time  of  Pentecost,  that  there  is  a 
contradiction  between  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  the  New  Testament.  The  rock  they 
drank  of  was  Christ,  and  the  way  men  par- 
take of  that  rock  is  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
is  "a  well  of  water,  springing  up  unto  eter- 
nal life."  But  enough  on  this  point  at  pres- 
ent. I  have  plenty  of  material  here  this 
evoaing  that  is  in  shape. 

He  objects  again  to  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
because  it  says  that  God  cursed  certain 
people  with  a  skin  of  blackness,  (the  In- 
Qians.)  Yet,  doubtless,  he  accepts  the  idea 
that  God  did  curse  Canaan  and  from  him 
were  the  descendents  of  Ham.  That  he  al- 
•o  put  a  mark  upon  Cain.  But  then  these 
accounts  are  in  the  Bible,  and  possibly  my 
opponent  has  no  difficulty  in  believing 
thsrn.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  the  In- 
dians' skins  are  black,  or  dark,  and  there 
must  have  been  a  cause  for  it.  The  Book 
of  Mormon  says  God  put  this  upon  them  be- 
cause of  their  iniquity.  Can  Mr.  Braden 
give  a  better  reason  ?  But  now  we  strike 
our  friend's  invincible  objection.  The 
stronghold  behind  which  he  bids  defiance 
to  the  Book  of  Mormon.  He  'says,  among 
other  animals  which  they  found,  on  the 
promised  land  in  the  wilderness,  was  the 


ox.  "Miraculous !"  he  exclaims.  He  had 
quite  forgotten  that  it  is  stated  in  the  Bi- 
ble, "Thou  shalt  not  plpw  with  an  ox  and 
an  ass  together."  Deut.  22: 10.  And  that  ox  ia 
used  to  represent  a  class  of  animals  known 
as  the  cattle  kind,  just  as  the  ass  is  used  to 
represent  another  kind  known  as  the  ass  ; 
as  swine  represents  the  hog  kind  ;  and  that 
neither  the  Bible  nor  any  other  writer 
thought  it  necessary  to  use  only  the  male 
gender  in  all  of  their  writing  ;  but  used  the 
common,  the  familar  and  modest  words, 
"  The  ox  and  the  ass."  If  you  will  turn  to 
Webster's  Dictionary,  you  will  see  that  he 
defines  the  word  "ox"  as  applying  to  all 
cattle  kind,  and  especially  when  they  are 
found  in  a  wild  state,  or  in  the  woods,  as 
they  were  found  when  the  second  people 
came  to  this  continent.  Can't  you  under- 
stand it,  Mr.  Braden?  Read  and  be  in- 
structed and  come  out  from  your  strong 
wall  of  defense !  It  will  be  better  for  your 
side  perhaps,  if  you  will  put  a  little  erudi- 
tion into  your  speeches,  and  copy  with  less 
credulity  from  the  misrepresentations,  and 
falsehoods,  published  by  Mr.  E.  D.  Howe, 
et  al.  Every  one  of  these  objections  of 
yours  are  but  the  reproduction  of  Howe.  If 
they  would  stand  the  test,  all  well  arid 
good  ;  but  when  any  one  can  see  the  fallacy 
of  them  by  taking  the  objection  as  made  by 
Howe,  and  comparing  with  the  record  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon  it  seems  childish  to  me 
for  a  man  who,  according  to  his  own  story, 
has  scalped  Ingersoll,  and  put  a  nost  of 
Philistines  like  Underwood,  Jamieson,  Rev. 
Mr.  Hughey,  and  Moses  Hull  to  flight,  to  be 
thus  burdening  his  intellect  with  such 
trifling  matters.  But  he  objects  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon  by  reason  of  the  predic- 
tion of  the  day  of  darkness  upon  the  earth 
as  follows :  Book  of  Mormon,  p.  22. 

"And  it  came  to  pass  that  I  saw  a  rnist  of  darkness  on 
the  face  of  the  land  of  promise ;  and  I  saw  lightnings, 
and  I  heard  thnnderings  and  earthquakes,  and  all 
manner  of  tumultuous  noises :  and  I  saw  the  earth  and 
the  rocks  that  they  rent;  and  I  saw  mountains  tum- 
bling into  pieces;  and  I  saw  the  plains  of  the  earth 
that  they  were  broken  up;  and  I  saw  many  cities  that 
they  were  sunk." 

This  was  a  vision  of  things  to  occur  on  the 
promised  land,  not  on  all  the  earth.  The 
fulfilment  of  the  prediction  took  place  at 
the  crucifixion  of  Christ  as  record-  rt  on 
pages  437  and  438  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
However  much  this  may  be  spurned  and 
laughed  at  by  my  opponent,  the  tradition- 
ary evidences  given  hy  the  natives  confirm 
the  statement.  "There  was  a  terrible  hur- 
ricane that  carried  away  trees,  mountains, 
houses,  and  the  largest  edifices."  "All  this 
time  they  were  in  darkness  without  seeing 
the  light  of  the  sun  or  moon."  See  North 
Americans  of  antiquity,  by  John  T.  Short, 
page  239.  I  will  turn  to  Baldwin's  Ancient 
America,  page  176,  and  show  you  what  is 
given  in  historical  works  in  regard  to  this. 
He  says : 

"In  the  first  place  Brnsseur  de  Bonrbourg  claims 
that  there  Is  In  the  old  Central  American  Books  a  con- 
stant tradition  of  an  immense  catastrophe  of  the  char- 
acter supposed:  this  tradition  affirms  that  a  part  of  the 
continent  extending  into  the  Atlantic  was  destroyed  in 
the  manner  supposed,  and  appears  to  Indicate  that  the 
destruction  was  accomplished  by  »  succession  of 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


145 


frightful  convulsions.  Three  are  constantly  mention- 
ed and  sometime*  there  is  mention  of  one  or  two 
others," 

Who  will  he  say  went  down  to  Central 
America  and  got  this  out  of  the  old  books? 
Sidney  Rigdon,  or  Solomon  Spaulding? 
Take  which  horn  of  the  dilemma  you 
choose  now.  But  I  will  read  on  : 

"The  land  waj  shaken  by  frightful  earthquakes,  and 
the  wiivt-s  of  the  sea  combined  with  volcanic  fires  to 
overwhelm  and  engulf  it  Each  convulsion  swept 
away  portions  of  the  land,  until  the  whole  disappeared, 
leaving  the  line  of  the  coast  as  it  is  now.  Most  of  the 
inhabitants,  overtaken  amid  their  regular  employ- 
ments, were  destroyed ;  but  some  escaped  in  ships  and 
some  fled  for  safety  to  the  summits  of  high  mountains, 
or  to  portions  of  the  land  which,  for  the  time,  escaped 
Immediate  destruction.  Quotations  are  made  from  the 
old  books  in  which  this  tradition  is  recorded  which  ap- 
pear to  verify  his  report  of  what  is  found  in  them.  To 
criticise  intelligently  his  interpretation  of  their  signifi- 
cance, one  needs  to  have  a  knowledge  of  those  books 
and  traditions,  equal  at  least  to  his  own." 

These  things  it  is  stated,  same  page,  were 
handed  down  to  the  people,  "  and  were  pre- 
served in  some  of  their  festivals,  especially 
one  celebrated  in  the  month  of  Izcalli  which 
was  instituted  to  commemorate  this  fright- 
ful destruction  of  land  and  people,  and  in 
which  princes  and  people  humbled  them- 
selves before  the  divinity  and  besought  him 
to  withhold  a  return  of  such  terrible  cala- 
mities." 

I  might  refer  also  to  the  fact  that  Geolo- 
gical speculation  recognizes  "catastroph- 
ism"  as  affecting  the  wonderful  changes  on 
the  continent.  Baldwin,  page  181.  The 
criticism  and  great  parade  over  the  sign  that 
was  given  on  this  continent  of  the  birth  of 
Christ  into  the  world,  as  found  on  page  422 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  is  no  credit  to  my 
opponent.  The  book  simply  states  that 
when  Christ  was  born  there  was  no  night 
or  darkness  on  this  continent;  and  this  was 
one  of  the  signs  given  to  indicate  the  time 
of  his  coming.  A  star  also  appeared,  but  it 
does  not  say  it  shined  in  the  day  time. 
Why  Mr.  Braden  should  object  to  super- 
natural things  occurring  on  this  continent 
at  the  birth  of  the  Savior,  when  so  many 
wonderful  things  occurred  on  the  Eastern 
continent,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible,  ia 
singularly  strange.  Or  why  that  the  same 
things  should  not  appear  here  as  there.  A 
star  appeared  on  the  Eastern  continent  and 
went  before  the  wife  men  from  the  East  and 
stood  over  the  child  Jesus.  Did  it  shine  in 
the  day  time  or  only  in  the  night?  Mr. 
Braden  don't  know.  The  wise  men  and 
searchers  could  not  have  come  from  very  far 
East  in  one  night.  The  whole  difficulty  he 
has  found  is  answered  in  the  question,  was 
God  able  to  make  it  appear  light  in  this 
country  at  the  time  when  darkness  would 
lome  on?  If  this  account  was  in  the  Bible 
he  would  swallow  it  down  and  then  ask  for 
more  like  it;  but  as  it  is  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  it  must  be  spurned  and  ridiculed. 

Because  the  Savior's  coming  was  clearly 
predicted  by  the  prophets  on  this  continent 
with  many  of  the  events  that  should  trans- 
pire during  his  birth  and  ministry,  Mr. 
Braden  sets  up,  "  It  is  plagiarism — stolen 
from  the  Bible  or  New  Testament."  Says 
the  predictions  were  made  "  more  full  here 
than  by  the  prophets  on  the  Eastern  con- 


tinent." And  here  it  is  well  to  observe  that 
he  does  not  know  that.  There  were  many 
things  written  by  inspired  men  upon  the 
Eastern  continent  which  are  not  in  the 
Bible.  Some  twenty  books  are  mentioned 
in  the  Bible  that  are  not  known  at  the 
present  time.  What  those  books  said  about 
the  birth  of  Christ,  Mr.  Braden  don't  know. 
Christ's  second  coming,  which  has  not  yet 
taken  place,  was  pretty  fully  set  forth  as 
early  as  the  days  of  Adam.  Jude  quotes 
from  an  inspired  book  which  Mr.  Braden 
never  saw,  as  follows :  "  And  Enoch,  the 
seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied  of  these 
saying,  Behold  the  Lord  cometh  with  ten 
thousand  of  h;s  Saints  to  execute  judgment 
upon  all  the  ungodly."  As  the  Nephites 
had  the  Old  Testament  scripture  up  to  the 
time  of  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  they  doubt- 
less were  in  possession  of  many  of  the 
inspired  writings  which  are  now  lost  to  the 
world,  including  the  one  that  Jude  quotes 
from,  which  in  all  probability  just  as  clearly 
and  definitely  set  forth  this  first  coming  of 
Christ  as  the  second.  This  is  the  reason 
that  the  Nephites  quote  from  several  pro- 
phets whose  names  are  not  found  in  the 
Bible.  What  of  it?  Christ  affirmed  that 
all  of  the  prophets  testified  of  him.  If  they 
testified,  they  said  something  about  him, 
and  many  of  them  the  same  or  like  things. 
Moses,  David,  Isaiah,  Daniel,  Zachariahand 
others  speak  particularly  of  his  birth  and 
events  attendant  upon  his  first  coming. 
They  specify  that  he  should  be  born  of  a 
virgin, — that  none  should  desire  him,  "  A 
man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief;" 
would  be  crucified,  —  killed  between  two 
thieves  ;  be  spit  upon,  his  garments  parted, 
smitten  on  the  cheek  and  a  scepter  put  in 
his  hand  in  derision ;  and  an  array  of  other 
things  too  numerous  to  mention,  and  in 
which  it  is  just  as  particularly  set  forth, 
and  more  so  in  detail,  than  in  the  prophe- 
cies as  found  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  This 
objection  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  like  the 
others  made  is  of  no  consequence ;  and  no 
proof  of  plagiarism.  Bui  he  says,  "The 
Book  of  Mormon  teaches  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  just  like  Rigdon  believed  it." 
How  many  ways  are  there  to  believe  in  the 
resurrection?  Ezekiel  says,  "  I  will  open 
your  graves  and  cause  you  to  come  out  of 
your  graves."  Is  there  any  other  way  to 
believe  in  the  resurrection?  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead.  If  the  Book  of  Mormon 
taught  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  it  would 
be  taught  just  as  found  in  the  Bible,  for 
there  is  but  one  way  to  be  resurrected,  ».  e.t 
to  have  the  body  restored  to  life  again.  Do 
the  Campbellites  believe  it  in  a  different 
way?  You  notice  now  when  he  answers 
this. 

The  derisive  manner  in  which  he  treats 
the  Book  of  Mormon  is  the  same  as  that 
used  by  all  sceptics  against  the  Bible  —  to 
hold  it  up  in  sport  and  derision  ;  and  there 
is  scarcely  a  chapter  in  the  Bible  but  what 
has  received  their  scathing  satire  and  ridi- 
cule. Does  my  opponent  think  this  a 
Christian  way  to  examine  a  subject  of  any 
kind  in  order  to  reach  the  facts  in  the 


140 


matter?  Has  he  forgotten  that  noted 
sceptics  who  beJieve  as  little  in  the  Bible  as 
he  can  in  the  Pook  of  Mormon,  make  a  busi- 
ness of  entertaining  great  audiences  by  treat- 
ing the  Bible  precisely  as  he  does  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  He  must  remember,  that  after 
all  of  his  mirth  and  light  treatment,  truth 
remains  just  tae  same.  That  the  audience 
may  know  just  how  much  argument  there 
is  in  such  a  method,  I  will  read  a  passage 
from  the  Bible  after  his  style  of  reading  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  see  how  it  sounds. 
Isaiah  7 : 14-23 :  —  "  Therefore  the  Lord  him- 
self shall  give  you  a  sign  ;  behold  a  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son  and  shall  call 
his  name  Immanuel." 

Is  not  this  miraculous  enough  to  begin 
with?  But  I  will  continue : — 

"Butter  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  that  he 
may  know  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the 
good." 

According  to  Mr.  Braden's  superficial 
view  of  commenting,  that  would  be  a  sin- 
gular thing.  Hereafter  all  you  parents  need 
to  do  in  order  to  have  good  and  wise  chil- 
dren is  to  give  them  plenty  of  butter  and 
honey  to  eat.  Eighteenth  verse  : — 

"And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day 
that  the  Lord  shall  hiss  for  the  fly  that  is 
in  the  uttermost  part  of  the  rivers  of  Egypt, 
and  for  the  bee  that  is  in  the  land  of  Assy- 
ria." 

What  is  to  be  done  with  these  wonderful 
flies  that  live  in  the  rivers  of  Egypt  and  the 
Assyrian  bee.  Read  the  next  verse  and  you 
will  see ;  they  are  to  fill  all  the  holes  of 
the  rocks  in  the  country,  and  to  eat  in  the 
"thorn  bushes."  But  I  will  read  on  : — 

"In  the  same  day  shall  the  Lord  shave 
with  a  razor  that  is  hired,  namely,  by  them 
beyond  the  river,  the  king  of  Assyria,  the 
head  and  the  hair  of  the  feet  [on  the  bot- 
tom of  the  feet  my  opponent  would  say], 
and  it  shall  also  consume  his  beard." 

Well,  a  great  many  razors  do  that  these 
times. 

Now,  if  this  was  in  the  Book  of  Mormon 
would  he  not  have  a  more  miraculous  or 
terrible  thing  to  laugh  at  than  any  he  has 
found  in  that  book — shaving  the  "hair 
of  the  feet?" 

And  again :  "It  shall  come  to  pass  in 
that  day  that  a  man  shall  nourish  a  young 
cow  and  two  sheep  ;  and  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  for  the  abundance  of  milk  that  they 
shall  give,  he  shall  eat  butter  ;  for  butter 
and  honey  shall  every  one  eat  that  is  left 
in  the  land." 

If  this  was  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  would 
it  not  be  a  fine  piece  for  Mr.  Braden's  ridi- 
cule? 

Now,  it  seems  to  me,  my  friends,  that  be- 
fore you  begin  to  swallow  down  such  argu- 
ments as  that,  you  had  better  just  stop  and 
candidly  think  awhile  ;  weigh  and  consider 
these  things  and  statements  in  the  connec- 
tion in  which  they  are  written  in  their  full 
and  true  light,  and  not  regard  the  ridicu- 
culous  statement  made  as  to  them.  This 
ridicule  is  not  argument.  It  does  not  meet 
argument  upon  any  plane,  and  it  will  not 
attack  the  Hook  of  Mormon.  Neither  can 


it  attack  the  Bible  in  any  successful  sense 
with  thinking  men  and  women. 

But  he  makes  sport  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, because,  says  he,  "It  speaks  against 
Masonry."  Yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear, 
the  word  Mason  does  not  appear  in  it.  It 
speaks  against  secret  societies,  where  peo- 
ple band  together  to  rob,  and  steal,  and 
murder,  and  plunder;  warns  the  people 
into  whose  hands  the  book  should  fall 
against  all  such,  as  they  had  been  a  fruit- 
ful cause  of  the  destruction  of  the  govern- 
ment upon  the  continent  and  the  peace  of 
the  people.  Is  this  bad  advice?  Or  is  this 
Masonry?  If  so,  the  sooner  it  be  put  down 
the  better.  But  that  is  not  what  Masons 
profess.  Their's  is  a  benevolent  institu- 
tion ;  and  Joseph  Smith  and  Sidney  Rigdon 
were  both  "Masons."  The  Book  of  Mor- 
mon says,  page  382  that  "Gadianton,  who 
was  exceeding  expert  in  many  words,  and 
also  in  his  craft  to  carry  on  the  secret  work 
of  murder  and  robbery ;  therefore  he  be- 
came the  leader  of  the  band  of  Kishku- 
men."  "They  also  sought  place  in  the  gov- 
ernment." Page  39(J.  This  band  of  rob: 
bers  became  so  powerful  that  the  law- 
abiding  people  were  compelled  to  take  up 
arms  and  defend  their  wives  and  children 
and  property  against  them.  See  Book  of 
Mormon,  pages  424,  425,  Is  this  Masonry? 
These  robbers  had  such  strong  holds  in  the 
mountains  that  the  people  could  not  dis- 
lodge them.  Pages  426,  427  and  430.  On 
page  423  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  it  reads  : 
"And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  ninety  and 
third  year  did  also  pass  away  in  peace,  save 
it  were  for  the  Gadianton  robbers,  who 
dwelt  upon  the  mountains — who  did  infest 
the  land ;  for  so  strong  were  their  holds 
and  their  secret  places  that  the  people  could 
not  overthrow  them." 

Again,  page  424,  verse  10  ••  "The  war  be- 
tween the  robbers  and  the  people  of  Nephi 
did  continue  and  became  exceeding  sore ; 
nevertheless  the  people  of  Nephi  did  gain 
some  advantage  of  the  robbers,  insomuch 
that  they  did  drive  them  back  out  of  their 
lands  into  the  mountains,  and  into  their 
secret  places." 

Book  of  Mormon,  page  427:  "And  it  came, 
to  pass  in  the  latter  end  of  the  eighteenth 
year,'  those  armies  of  robbers  had  prepared 
for  battle,  and  began  to  come  down,  and  to 
sally  forth  from  the  hills  and  out  of  the 
mountains,  and  the  wilderness,  and  their 
strongholds,  and  secret  places,  and  began, 
to  take  possession  of  the  lands." 

This  is  what  my  friend  calls  Masonry. 
This  account  is  confirmed  by  recent  explo- 
rations. On  the  Lookout  Mountain,  lying 
between  the  Gennessee  and  Cass  rivers, 
there  is  a  strong  fortification  built  upon  the 
brow  of  the  great  ledge  of  stone.  It  in- 
cludes about  two  acres  of  ground.  Within 
thirty  feet  of  the  top  of  this  rock  are  five 
rooms  made  by  dint  of  labor.  The  entrance 
to  these  rooms  is  very  small.  Mr.  Fergu- 
son thinks  them  to  have  been  constructed 
during  some  dreadful  wars  and  thosi  who 
constructed  them  acted  on  the  defensive ; 
and  believes  that  it  was  so  formidable,  thai 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


147 


twenty  men  could  have  withstood  the 
whole  army  of  Xerxes  ;  as  it  was  impossi- 
ble for  more  than  one  to  pass  at  a  time, 
and  by  a  slight  push  could  be  hurled  one 
hundred  and  fifty  feet  below.  Says,  Mr. 
Short,  in  speaking  of  these:  "This  intro- 
duces us  to  another  class  of  ruins,  which, 
with  a  couple  of  exceptions,  were  not  dis- 
covered prior  to  the  summer  of  1874.  We 
refer  to  the  cliff  dwellings,  the  most  remark- 
able habitations  ever  occupied  by  man." 
Pages  293  to 298.  "The  most  surprising  re- 
sults in  all  history  of  archaeological  explo- 
ration in  this  country  was  obtained  in  Sept.. 
1874,  by  a  party  connected  with  the  United 
States'  Geological  and  Geographical  Sur- 
vey Corps."  "  One  of  the  first  cliff  houses 
discovered  by  explorers  is  a  most  interest- 
ing structure,  the  position  of  which  i»  over 
600  feet  from  the  bottom  of  the  cafion  in  a 
niche  of  the  wall  furnishes  a  significant 
commentary  on  the  straits  to  which  this 
sorely- pressed  people  were  driven  by 
their  enemies."  "Five  hundred  feet  of 
the  ascent  to  be  made  to  this  aerial  dwelling 
was  comparitively  easy,  but  a  hundred  feet 
of  almost  perpendicular  wall  confronted 
the  party,  up  which  thay  never  could  have 
climbed,  but  for  the  fact  that  they  found  a 
series  of  cuts  in  the  face  of  the  rock  leading 
up  to  the  ledge  upon  which  the  house  was 
built.  This  ledge  was  ten  feet  wide  by 
twenty  feet  in  length,  with  a  vertical  space 
between  it  and  the  over-hanging  rock  of 
fifteen  feet.  The  rocks  of  the  cliff  served 
as  the  rear  wall  of  the  house.  The  door 
opening  on  the  esplanade  was  but  twenty 
by  thiity  inches  in  size."  "Some  little 
taste  was  exhibited  by  the  occupants  of 
this  human  swallow  nest."  "  An  examina- 
tion of  the  immediate  vicinity  revealed  the 
ruins  of  a  half  dozen  similar  dwellings  in 
ledges  of  the  cliffs,  some  of  them  Qccupy- 
ing  positions  the  inaccessibility  of  which, 
must  ever  be  a  wonder,  when  considered  as 
places  of  residence  for  human  beings." 
Down  the  valley  a  ways,  a  remarkable 
"watch  tower"  was  discovered.  "The 
outer  wall  of  which  was  43  feet  in  diameter, 
the  inner  twenty-five.  The  outer  wall  is 
still  standing  twelve  feet  high."  Mr. 
Jackson's  next  discovery  was  "  on  the  face 
of  the  vertical  rock,  which  here  ran  up 
from  tbe  bottom  of  the  cauou;  und  at  a 


height  of  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  feet, 
were  a  number  of  nest-like  habitations." 
"  The  cliff  house  in  this  case  was  reached 
by  its  occupants  from  the  top  of  the  canon. 
The  walls  were  pronounced  as  firm  as  the 
rock  upon  which  they  were  built.  The 
stones  were  very  regular  in  size.  The 
dwelling  measured  fifteen  feet  in  length, 
five  feet  in  width,  and  six  feet  in  height. 
Three  miles  further  down  the  cafion,  the 
party  discovered  at  heights  from  600  to  800 
feet  above  their  heads,  some  curious,  unique 
little  dwellings,  sandwiched  among  the 
crevices  of  the  horizontal  strata  of  the 
rock  of  which  the  bluff  was  composed. 
Access  to  the  summit  of  the  bluff  a  thousand 
feet  high  was  obtained  by  a  circuitous  path 
through  a  side  cafiou,  and  the  houses  them- 
selves could  only  be  reached  at  the  utmost 
peril — of  being  precipitated  to  the  bottom 
of  the  dizzy  abyss — by  crawling  along  a 
ledge  twenty  inches  wide  and  only  high 
enough  for  a- man  in  a  creeping  position. 
This  led  to  the  wider  shelf  on  which  the 
houses  rested.  The  perfection  of  the  finish 
was  especially  noticeable  in  one  of  these 
houses,  which  was  but  fifteen  feet  long 
and  seven  feet  high,  with  a  wide  wall  run- 
ning back  in  a  semi-circular  sweep." 

Here  I  will  state  that  in  the  summer  of 
1876,  when  I  was  in  Washington  City,  I 
visited  the  National  Museum  and  noticed 
that  they  had  just  begun  to  place  casts, 
representations  of  these  cliff  dwellers' 
cities,  among  the  relics  and  curiosities  of 
that  institution.  But  when  in  1882  I  visited 
the  same  institution  there  were  large  num- 
bers of  these  representations  that  Seemed  to 
particularly  interest  and  attract  the  public. 
You  will  find  there  miniature  representa- 
tions of  these  cliff  cities  that  have  been 
lately  discovered,  prepared  for  the  purpose 
of  interesting  and  entertaining  the  world, 
for  there  is  nothing  that  has  ever  been 
found  that  is  like  them.  And  yet  they  are 
set  out,  described,  located  and  traced  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  in  the  history  of 
what  he  terms  Masonry,  but  which  in  fact 
is  the  history  of  the  combinations  of  robbers, 
and  not  Masonry.  How  did  Sidney  Rigdon 
get  these  facts?  Here  is  anotner  thing  of 
which  to  make  a  note  when  he  answers. 

(Time  called.) 


148 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   BRADEN'S    FOURTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — We  will  now  ask  your  atten- 
tion to  a  conglomeration  of  contradictions 
and  absurdities,  as  incapable  of  being  un- 
tied as  the  Gordian  knot ;  and  no  Mormon 
can  cut  it  either,  not  even  with  the  wonder- 
ful sword  of  Laban.  Page  507  :  The  plates 
of  Jared's  brother  are  to  be  sealed  and 
buried,  and  are  not  to  go  forth  until  the 
Gentiles  repent  of  their  iniquity,  have  faith 
and  are  clean  before  the  Lord.  According 
to  the  Book  of  Mormon  that  time  has  not 
come.  Page  523 :  Ether  hides  up  his  plates 
of  gold,  and  they  are  afterwards  found  by 
Limbi.  Not  Jared's  brother's  plates,  but 
Ether's  plates,  who  never  had  or  saw  the 
plates  of  Jared's  brother.  Page  158 :  Ser- 
vants of  Limbi  find  twenty-four  gold  plates, 
said  to  be  Ether's  plates,  not  the  plates  of 
Jared's  brother.  Page  156:  King  Benjamin 
lived  only  three  years  after  Mosiah  began 
to  reign  in  his  stead.  Three  years  after  Mo- 
siah ascended  the  throne,  or  just  after  his 
father's  death,  he  sent  men  out  who  first 
learned  of  Limbi  and  his  people.  Limbi 
told  them  of  the  gold  plates  of  Ether,  found 
by  his  people.  Page  507:  Jared's  brother 
was  to  write  and  seal  up  what  he  had  seen, 
and  bury  it,  and  his  two  stone  interpreters, 
and  they  were  not  to  come  forth  until  after 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  until  the  Gentiles 
were  converted,  and  this  time  has  not  come 
yet.  Then  occurs  this  sentence:  "For  this 
cause  did  King  Benjamin  keep  the  plates  of 
Jared's  brother,  that  they  should  not  come 
to  the  world  till  after  the  death  of  Christ." 
Page  200 :  King  Mosiah  translates  the  plates 
found  by  Limbi's  people,  with  the  inter- 
preters handed  down  from  generation  to 
generation  from  the  beginning,  that  the 
people  might 'know  concerning  the  people 
that  had  been  destroyed. 

Now,  then,  let  us  point  out  a  portion  of 
the  contradictions.  1.  The  plates  of  Jared's 
brother  were  hid  up,  and  were  not  to  go 
forth  until  the  Gentiles  were  converted,  and 
yet  King  Benjamin  had  them.  2.  Here  it 
is  represented  that  the  servants  of  Limbi 
found  the  plates  of  Jared's  brother,  and 
they  came  into  King  Benjamin's  hands. 
In  another  place  it  is  the  gold  plates  of 
Ether  that  they  find.  3.  King  Benjamin 
had  the  plates  found  by  Limbi's  people, 
yet  he  died  before  his  people  knew  anything 
about  Limbi's  people,  or  the  plates  they 
had  found.  4.  King  Benjamin  had  these 
plates  found  by  Limbi's  people,  yet  Limbi 
gave  them  to  King  Benjamin's  people  after 
the  kind's  death.  5.  If  the  plates  in  King 
Benjamin's  possession  were  the  plates  of 
Jared's  brother,  they  could  not  be  trans- 
lated without  the  two  stone  interpreters 
he  buried  with  them — at  least  the  Lord  said 
so.  Those  interpreters  were  never  found, 
yet  Mosiah  translated  the  plates  without 
these  interpreters,  with  a  pair  his  ancestors 


had  handed  down  for  generations.  6.  If 
they  were  the  plates  of  Jared's  brother  they 
were  not  to  go  forth  until  after  the  death  of 
Christ  and  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles, 
yet  Mosiah  gave  their  contents  to  his  people 
before  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  Gentiles 
are  not  converted  yet.  7.  Jared's  brother 
buried  his  interpreters  with  his  plates.  If 
King  Benjamin  had  his  plates  where  were 
those  interpreters  that  were  so  all-import- 
ant to  an  understanding  of  the  plates.  8. 
Mosiah  interpreted  these  plates  with  stone 
interpreters  handed  down  for  generations, 
from  the  beginning.  From  the  beginning- 
must  mean  since  Lehi  left  Jerusalem.  We- 
hear  of  Laban's  sword,  Laban's  breast- 
plate, Lehi's  compass,  but  nothing  of  these 
all-important  instruments,  interpreters 
until  now.  9.  Mosiah 's  grandfather  trans- 
lated the  stone  of  Coriautimur  without  any 
interpreter;  but  his  grandson  mu«t  use  in- 
terpreters that  his  grandfather  did  not  have, 
or  did  have  and  did  not  use,  and  yet  could 
not  translate  without  using  them.  If  they 
were  the  plates  of  Jared's  brother  we  have 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  at  least  all  their 
important  features,  in  the  Jaredite  portion, 
yet  the  Lord  said  they  should  not  go  farther 
until  the  Gentiles  were  converted,  and  that 
has  not  been  done  yet.  Well,  there  we  will 
stop,  though  we  are  by  no  means  done  with 
the  contradictions. 

The  Jaredites  left  Asia  right  after  the 
confusion  of  tongues.  Between  that  time 
and  their  destruction  they  had  iwenty-six 
kings,  some  of  whom  reigned  but  a  short 
time.  .They  were  destroyed  about  250  B. 
C.,  for  "Coriantimur  died  among  the  Zara- 
hemlites  about  that  time.  From  Moses  to 
Christ  was  1600  years  by  true  Chronology. 
Subtract  250  and  we  have  1350.  From 
Moses  to  Abraham  645  years  by  true  chron- 
ology. From  Abraham  to  Babel  was  250 
years,  or  the  time  from  the  departure  of  the 
Jaredites  from  Babel  till  their  destruction 
was  2250,  which  divided  by  26  gives  86 
years,  as  the  average  length  of  the  reign  of 
each  Jaredite  king,  if  we  accept  the  other 
statement  that  they  were  destroyed  600 
pears  before  Christ,  the  average  reign  was 
73  years.  Sidney  did  not  stop  and  figure 
that  story  out,  when  he  wrote  it. 

Jared's*  brother  ( I  wish  Sidney  had  given 
that  fellow  a  name  while  he  was  about  it ), 
seals  up  his  record  and  buries  it,  and  with 
it  his  stone  interpreters,  without  which  no 
one  can  read  the  record,  and  the  Lord  says 
it  shall  not  go  forth  until  after  the  death  of 
Christ  and  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles, 
an  event  yet  future.  Over  2000  years  after- 
wards, long  before  Christ,  Ether  finishes 
this  record.  How  could  he  so  long  before 
Christ  get  the  portion  Jared  wrote,  when 
the  Lord  said  he  could  not  ?  How  did  he 
write  on  the  plates  if  they  were  sealed? 
How  did  he  interpret  it  so  as  to  know 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


when  to  begin  his  record,  so  as  to 
begin  when  the  record  stopped  in  the 
history?  If  Ether  got  those  plates  was  not 
the  Lord  mistaken?  If  he  read  them  was 
not  the  Lord  mistaken?  If  he  ieft  them  so  that 
Linibi  got  them,  was  not  the  Lord  mistaken  ? 
If  Mosiah  translated  them  without  Jared's 
brother's  interpreter,  was  not  the  Lord 
mistaken  ?  If  Mosiah  gave  the  whole  thing 
away  to  his  people,  was  not  the  Lord  mis- 
taken? If  Ether's  plates  are  a  continuation 
of  the  plates  of  Jared's  brother,  how  did 
Moroni  interpret  the  portion  of  Jared's 
brother's?  How  did  he  get  Jared's  broth- 
er's interpreters  without  which,  according 
to  the  Lord,  it  was  impossible  to  understand 
the  plates?  He  did  not  have  them,  he  had 
Mosiah's  interpreters.  Then  he  had  Mosiah 's 
translation,  or  rather  his  father  did,  and 
buried  it,  and  Moroni  had  neither  plates 
nor  translation,  come  to  think  about  it.  If 
he  had  what  Mormon  buried,  and  he  must 
have  had  them  in  order  to  get  Ether's  plates, 
he  had  Mosiah'e,  full  translation.  What 
need  then  of  Moroni's  translation,  when 
Mosiah  had  done  it?  What  need  of  his 
abridgement,  when  he  could  have  buried 
for  Impostor  Joe  the  whole  fleet  load  of 
plates,  the  whole  library?  What  need  of 
Moroni's  translation  for  Imposter  Joe  since 
he  had  Jared's  brother's  interpreters,  and 
eould  read  the  original?  How  did  Imposter 
Joe  get  those  interpreters  since  Moroni 
never  had  them?  Moroni  never  had  them, 
nobody  ever  had  them,  and  nobody  can 
have  them,  until  the  Gentiles  are  converted. 
How  could  Moroni  and  Mormon  translate 
those  plates  of  Jared's  brother,  without  the 
interpreters  sealed  up  with  them  and  with- 
out which  the  Lord  said  nobody  could 
understand  them,  and  Imposter  Joe  had  to 
have  Jared's  brother's  interpreters  that  the 
Lord  said  nobody  should  have,  to  interpret 
an  abridgement  of  a  translation  made  by 
those  who  did  not  have  what  the  Lord  said 
they  must  have.  How — but  there  we  will 
stop  again.  This  jumble  of  lies  is  the  "Ful- 
ness of  the  Gospel." 

The  Book  of  Mormon  tells  of  three  fellows 
who  never  died,  and  never  will  die.  That 
is  a  pretty  big  story,  but  it  beats  that  in 
another  place.  It  tells  us  of  a  fellow  who 
lived  before  he  was  born,  or  before  he  lived 
at  all.  Page  481  Ainaron  hid  up  the  records 
in  the  year  320.  Page  482.  Mormon  was 
then  ten  years  old.  Page  483.  When  he 
was  fifteen  or  in  325  the  Nephites  who 
were  never  to  see  death,  were  taken  away 
because  of  the  sins  of  the  people.  They 
were  taken  out  of  the  land  entirely.  Page 
485.  Moroni  writes : 

"There  are  none  that  know  th«  true  God,  save  It  be 
"  the  three  disciples  of  Jesua,  who  did  tarry  in  th« 
"  land,  until  the  wickednes  of  the  people  was  so  great 
"  that  the  Lord  would  not  suffer  them  to  remain  with 
"  the  people,  and  whether  these  be  on  the  face  of  the 
"  land,  no  man  kno vvetli.  But  behold  my  father  and  I 
"  have  seen  them,  and  they  have  ministered  unto  us." 

Contradictions:  I.  Mormon  flays  that 
these  three  were  taken  out  of  the  Land 
when  he  was  fifteen.  Moroni  says  nobody 
knows  whether  they  are  in  the  Land  or 
not,  although  he  tells  ua  that  the  Lord 


took  them  out  of  the  Land.  Mormon  says 
they  were  taken  out  of  the  Land  when  he 
was  fifteen.  If  they  ministered  to  Mormon 
it  was  before  he  was  fifteen.  Moroni  says 
they  ministered  unto  him  and  his  father. 

They  ministered  to  him  years  before  he 
was  born,  or  he  had  a  very  precocious 
father.  With  ordinary  people  that  would 
be  extraordiuory,  but  it  doubtless  was  a 
common  thing  with  Sidney's  Nephites. 

The  story  of  the  extermination  of  the  Ne- 
phites is  idiot' cally  absurd.  We  are  told, 
Eage  384,  that  the  Nephites  covered  the 
md  from  the  sea  East  to  the  sea  West,  and 
from  the  sea  South  to  the  sea  North, 
or  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific, 
and  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the 
Northern  Ocean,  or  all  of  British  Amer- 
ica and  the  United  States,  and  probably 
most  of  Mexico.  They  were  a  highly-civil- 
ized, wealthy  people,  with  ships,  temnles, 
houses,  cities,  cultivated  farms,  and  fixed 
residences.  In  the  year  880  the  Nephites 
were  signally  defeated  by  the  Lamanites. 
Page  491.  Moroni,  their  leader,  proposes 
that  both  sides  gather  every  man,  woman, 
and  child,  on  each  side  for  a  final  struggle, 
inthePlainofCumorah.  in  the  present  State 
of  New  York.  The  object  of  the  writer  is 
to  get  the  people  together  to  have  them  ex- 
terminated, and  in  the  right  spot  for  Im- 
poster Joe  to  find  the  plates.  Who  believes 
that  an  intelligent  leader,  of  an  intelligent 
civilized  people,  ever  dreamed  of  such  a 
fool's  project,  or  even  proposed  it  to  a  sen- 
sible people?  The  Mormons  who  flock  to- 
gether at  the  call  of  Imposter  Joe,  or  Pria- 
pus  Young,  might  do  it,  but  people  of  com- 
mon sense  would  not.  Who  believes  that 
an  intelligent,  wealthy,  highly  civilized 
people,  covering  British  America,  Uni- 
ted States  and  Mexico  would  abandon 
cities,  homes,  farms,  property,  and  flock  to- 
gether, millions  of  them,  in  obedience  to 
such  an  idiotic  command?  Who  believes 
that  such  millions  of  people  could  accom- 
plish such  an  undertaking?  Think  of  the 
North  and  South  leaving  homes  and  prop- 
erty, and  flocking,  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren, to  the  central  part  of  New  York  for  a 
"Kilkenny  cat  fight;"  and  this  was  done 
before  telegraphs  to  send  out  the  command 
from  the  State  of  New  York  to  A  laska.  Cal- 
ifornia, and  Florida.  And  the  people  nock- 
ed by  millions,  men,  women  and  children, 
to  central  New  York,  without  railroads  to 
carry  them,  marching,  men,  women  and 
children,  every  soul  of  them  to  central  New 
York,  from  Alaska,  from  California,  from 
Florida,  to  be  exterminated,  and  all  that 
Imposter  Joe  might  get  those  plates.  In 
less  than  four  years  these  millions  of  idiots 
who  had  come  at  this  idiot's  idiotic  decree, 
gathered,  men,  women  and  children  in  cen- 
tral New  York.  And  the  fool  Lamanites 
they  gathered  also.  And  then  they  "fit," 
and  they  "fit,"  and  they  "fit,"  and  "fit." 
and  "fit,"  until  only  one  Nephite  was  left, 
Moroni,  and  he  escaped  for  no  earth  ly  reu- 
son,  except  that  the  Lord  wanted  him  to 
finish  up  and  bury  these  plates  for  Impos- 
ter Joe.  Seriously,  ladies  and  gentlemen, 


150 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


do  you  believe  that  such  idiocy  as  that  is 
the  "fulness  of  the  gospel?" 

The  slaughter  of  the  Jaredites  is  even 
worse  than  this.  In  their  case  there  was  a 
war  until  ten  times  as  many  soldiers  as  were 
killed  in  our  great  civil  war  were  slain,  and 
fifteen  or  twenty  millions  of  noTi-combat- 
ents  ;  and  then  there  is  an  idiotic  gathering 
of  millions  of  idiots — men,  women  and  chil- 
dren—for  an  idiotic  "Kilkenny  cat  fight," 

There  is  the  same  leaving  of  home,  cities, 
property,  and  all  behind.  The  same  flock- 
ing toge'ther  of  men,  women  and  children. 
Observe  tbe  idiocy  of  both  this  account  and 
the  Nephite  slaughter.  Warriors  leave  their 
wives,  children  and  non-combatants  at 
home.  But  a  portion  of  the  men  as  are  ever 
taken  tothe  field;  some  are  left  to  take  care 
of  the  property.  It  is  only  migratory  nations 
or  people  on  an  emigration  like  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  wilderness  that  take  their  women 
and  children  with  them.  This  people  were 
a  highly  civilized,  wealthy  people,  and  the 
very  people  who  would  send  put  only  a 
portion  of  their  men.  Another  idiocy.  We 
are  told  men,  women  and  children  marched 
armed  with  shields,  head  plates  and  breast 
plates  and  other  weapons  of  war.  Women 
armed  with  weapons  of  war,  children  armed 
with  weapons  of  war!  Idiocy  ineffable! 
And  then  they  went  forth  to  battle,  men, 
women  and  children,  millions  of  them — 
babies  and  all,  with  head-plates,  breast- 
plates, shield  and  swords,  spears,  bows, 
arrows,  darts,  and  doubtless  with  catapul- 
tae  and  battering  rams.  And  they  "fit," 
and  they  "fit"  and  "fit,"  and  "fit"  and 
"fit,"  till  Coriantimur,  and  Shiz,  andEthef 
fwho  was  bottle  holder)  alone  were  left. 
"Then  Coriantimur  smote  off  the  head  of 
Shiz,  and  it  came  to  pass  that  after 
he  had  smote  off  the  head  of  Shiz. 
that  Shiz  raised  up  his  hands  and  fell 
after  that  he  had  struggled  for  breath  he 
died."  Now  most  men  die  and  quit  breath- 
ing when  their  heads  are  off,  all  except 
Sydney's  Jaredites.  Thatexplains  the  oath 
of  the  Masons  among  the  Jaredites.  "If  a 
man  would  not  do  what  he  had  sworn  to 
do,  he  was  to  lose  his  head.  If  he  told  the 
secrets  he  was  to  loss  his  life."  As  Syd- 
ney's Jaredites  did  not  lose  their  lives  when 
they  lost  their  heads,  the  difference  in  the 
two  penalties  is  all  clear  now.  Ether  then 
then  finished  his  work  in  making  out  a  re- 
port for  Impostor  Joe.  This  fight  was  worse 
than  even  the  Kilkenny  cat  fight.  In  that 
classic  contest  the  tip  of  each  cat's  tail  was 
left,  but  in  this,  the  cats,  tails  and  all,  on 
both  sides,  down  to  the  last  hair,  were  used 
up,  except  one  hair,  Ether,  that  was  not  in 
the  fight  at  all.  The  Jaredites  were  taken 
up  to  Central  New  York  to  be  exterminated. 
Then  the  Nephites  were  taken  up  there  to 
be  exterminated;  and  all  that  Ether  and 
Moroni  might  leave  the  plates  where  it 
would  be  handy  for  Impostor  Joe  to  find 
them.  The  Book  of  Mormon  piously  mor- 
alizes— "We  see  the  Lord  accomplishes 
great  things  with  small  means."  Yes,  in 
these  two  instances  he  accomplished  the 
smallest  possible  thing  with  infinitely  and 
miraculously  great  means. 


Having  told  us  of  men  who  lived  before 
they  were  born,  or  [lived  at  all,  and  men 
who  lived  after  they  were  dead,  Sidney 
tells  of  two  great  nations  who  occupied 
the  same  country,  farms  and  cities  at  the 
same  time  and  never  knew  of  each  other's 
existence.  On  page  136  we  are  told  that. 
Coriantimur  died  among  the  subjects  of 
King  Zarahem la  about  250  B.  C.  The  Jared- 
ites covered  the  continent  of  North  Amer- 
ica until  that  time  with  cities,  farms, houses, 
and  at  the  least  calculation  there  must  have 
been  60,000,000  of  them.  600  B.  C.,  or  530 
years  before  the  Jaredites  were  destroyed, 
the  Nephites  and  Zarahemlites  came  over 
and  they  spread  over  and  occupied  the  same 
land  for  350  years  before  the  Jaredites  used 
each  other  up,  so  we  have  two  great  na- 
tions of  different  race  and  language  occu- 
pying the  same  farms  and  cities  at  the  same 
time,  and  not  knowing  anything  about 
each  other.  There  now,  who  doubts  that 
the  Book  of  Mormon  is  of  Divine  origin? 
These  Jaredites  marched  up  to  New  York 
and  slew  each  other,  and  the  Nephites  who 
were  occupying  the  same  land  and  farms 
knew  nothing  of  it.  I  was  going  to  suggest 
that  Symmes's  theory  must  be  true,  and 
that  one  party  occupied  the  upper  side  of 
the  farms  while  the  other  occupied  the 
lower  side  in  Symmes's  hole,  but  the  State 
of  New  York,  where  the  Jaredites  perished, 
is  on  the  upper  side.  Perhaps  they  occupied 
the  land  as  the  Irish  and  the  fairies  occupy 
Ireland  at  the  same  time.  Will  Kelley  tell 
us  which  were  men  and  which  were  fairies, 
or  "good  people,"  as  the  Irish  call  them. 

We  are  told  that  Jaredite  cattle  went 
into  the  land  of  Zarahemla :  that  Jaredites 
went  after  them  :  that  Jaredites  hunted  in 
Zarahemla  and  built  cities  there  and  yefc 
the  Zarahemlites  and  Jaredites  knew  noth- 
ing of  each  other,  although  the  Zaraheml- 
ites were  over  300  years  before  Coriantimur 
came  among  them.  One  of  these  people 
must  have  been  fairies  certainly.  Page  516 
Jaredite  prophets  tell  the  people  that  unless 
they  repent  the  Lord  will  destroy  them 
and  bring  in  a  people  to  take  their  place. 
As  Coriantimur  died  among  the  Zaraheml- 
ites about  300  years  after  the  Nephites  and 
Zarahemlites  came  to  America  they  had 
already  been  in  the  land  hundreds  of  years 
when  these  prophets  were  prophecying, 
but  doubtless  it  was  as  fairies — invisible 
people,  and  the  Jaredites  and  their  inspired 
prophets  knew  nothing  of  it. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  tell  us  that  the 
Jaredites  had  glass  when  they  left  the 
Tower  of  Babel  for  how  could  Jared's 
brother  tell  that  the  "stones  he  did  moul- 
ten  out  of  a  rock"  were  like  glass  if  he  had 
never  seen  glass?  They  must  have  had 

flass  for  Granny  Smith  says,  Jared's 
rother's  interpreters  were  diamonds  set  in 
plates  of  glass,  which  were  set  in  silver 
bows.  They  had  steel  also  before  Abraham's 
day,  for  "  Shule  did  moulten  steel  out  of  ore 
and  make  swords  for  his  people."  Page 
512.  We  have  also  such  anachronisms  as 
"  Church"  600  B.  C..  when  the  word  wa» 
not  used  till  after  his  time.  We  have 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


151 


Christians  by  millions  hundreds  of  years 
before  Christ:  when  the  followers  of  Christ 
were  first  called  Christians  at  Antioch 
after  his  ascension.  We  have  "Churches 
of  Christ"  by  thousands  when  that  terra 
was  not  thought  of  until  after  his  death. 
We  have  "  Martyrs  for  Christ"  before  he 
was  preached  to  men.  We  have  Masonry 
described  and  denounced  thousands  of 
years  before  it  was  thought  of.  Episco- 
palian liturgy,  pulpits  and  "Lord's  day" 
and  "  Dissenters"  before  the  day  of  Christ, 
when  they  are  peculiar  to  England  and  the 
Christian  Dispensation.  We  have  the  Eng- 
lish legal  idea  of  the  "  bar  of  God"  fre- 
quently. There  are  debates  on  Soul-sleep- 
ing, Universalism,  Deism,  Unitarianism, 
and  all  the  topics  that  Rigdon  used  to 
debate,  and  the  Nephite  prophets  agree 
with  Sidney  every  time. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  has  such  American- 
ismsas  "Bearing down  against  theChurch." 
"  All  manner  of  good  homely  cioth." 
"  Sent  forth  to  preach  among  the  people." 
"  Somewhat."  "  It  supposeth  me."  It 
has  these  Rigdonisms.  "  The  numerority  of 
'•our  forces."  (I  suppose  Bigdon  believed 
with  the  Western  stump  orator  that  he  had 
as  good  a  right  to  make  words  as  old  Web- 
ster.) "The  enormity  of  our  number." 
What  particular  wickedness  constituted 
the  enormity  of  their  numbers  Sydney  does 
not  tell  us.  "  Rations."  "  Are  a  marching." 
"  It  mattereth  not."  "Makes  Bellowses." 
(That  is  equal  to  the  boy  who  wanted  some 
"  molaBseses.")  "Having  waxed  stronger 
11  in  health.  "I  am  a  man  of  no  small 
"reputation  among  those  who  know  me." 
fThat  is  the  Nephite  way  of  saying  "  I  am 
''some  Punkins  tu  hum.")  "As  I  was  a 
*' journeying."  "The  foundation  is  begin- 
"ning  to  be  laid."  "As  I  was  a  going 
"  forth."  "  He  saw  Amulak  a  preaching." 
"  My  heart  is  brim  with  joy."  "  A  tremen- 
w  dous  battle."  "  One  continual  round  of 
"  murder." 

Sidney  Rigdon  was  famous  for  his  power 
In  revival  excitements.  He  had  his  revival 
expressions  common  to  the  camp-meeting 
style  of  his  day.  The  Book  of  Mormon  is 
full  of  them,  such  as  "  I  am  encircled  about 
eternally  in  the  arms  of  his  Jove,"  (page  55, 
670  B.  C.)  "  Have  ye  been  spiritually  born 
of  God;"  •'  If  he  have  experienced  a  change 
of  heart;"  "If  ye  have  felt  to  sing  the 
songs  of  his  redeeming  love;"  "For  the 
arms  of  mercy  are  extended  towards  you." 
(Page  222,  80  B.)  The  last  expression  oc- 
curs several  times  in  the  book.  "Ye  shall 
awake  to  a  sense  of  your  awful  condition." 
(Page  531.)  "Many  died  firmly  believing  that 
their  souls  were  redeemed  by  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  (Page  333,  80  B.  C.)  "Have  they 
not  revealed  the  plan  of  salvation.  (Page 
136,  400  B.  C.)  Disciple  all  over.  "  The  own 
due  time  of  the  Lord."  (Pages  17,  72,  600 
B.  C.)  "  Or  otherwise  ye  can  imagine  your- 
selves brought  before  the  tribunal  of  God 
with  your  souls  filled  with  guilt  and  re- 
morse." (Page  321,  80  B.  C.)  Rigdon  all 
over.  "Thus  mercy  can  satisfy  the  de- 
mi.nds  of  justice."  Page  304,  75  B.  C.) 


Nepht  declares,  600  B.  C.,  "his  father  Lehi 
spake  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  he  received  by  faith  on  the  Son  of 
God,  and  the  Son  of  God  was  the  Messiah." 
(Page  123.)  Nephi  declares,  536  years  B.  C., 
"  I  glory  in  my  Jesus,  for  he  has  saved  my 
soul  from  hell."  "Enter  into  the  narrow 
gate  and  walk  in  the  straight  way  which 
leads  to  life."  A  regular  Baptist  experience 
and  exhortation.  "For  none  of  these  can 
I  hope  unless  they  be  reconciled  to  Christ." 
"Pour  out  your  souls  in  prayer."  "Live 
without  God  in  the  world."  "  O  blessed 
Jesus,  save  me  from  an  awful  hell."  "Pure 
as  the  driven  snow."  "Days  of  probation." 
"One  eternal  round."  We  might  quote 
Rigdon's  pet  revival  expressions  by  the 
page.  Perhaps  the  clearest  cases  of  mod- 
ernisms are  the  following:  "From  nature 
up  to  nature's  God  " — a  quotation  from  Al- 
exander Pope's  "Essay  on  Man,"  line  331. 
2000  years  before  he  lived.  On  page  54  Lehi 
says:  "I  go  to  the  cold  and  silent  grave, 
(a  revivalism  of  Rigdon)  from  whence  no 
traveler  can  return,"  quoting  from  Shak- 
speare's  Hamlet  2000  years  before  Shak- 
speare  was  born< 

Then  listen  to  some  of  the  revelations  and 
translations  that  Jehovah  doled  out  to  Im- 
poster  Joe,  "  word  by  word,  so  precious  was 
it."  "  If  there  be  fault  it  be  the  mistake 
of  men."  "And  I,  Nephi,  beheld  his  sword 
and  drew  it  from  the  sheath  thereof,  and 
the  hilt  thereof  was  of  gold  and  the  work- 
manship thereof  was  exceeding  fine,  and  I 
saw  that  the  blade  thereof  was  of  most 
precious  steel."  What  a  sentence  thereof. 
"Ye  shall  clear  away  the  branches  which 
bear  bitter  fruit  according  to  the  size  of  the 
good  and  the  strength  thereof,  and  ye  shall 
not  clear  away  the  bad  thereof  all  at  once, 
lest  the  roots  thereof  be  too  strong  for  the 
good  and  the  graft  thereof."  We  under- 
stand thereof.  "And  it  came  to  pass  that 
after  many  days  it  began  to  put  forth  some- 
what a  little  young  and  tender  branches, 
and  behold  the  main  top  thereof  began  to 
perish." 

"And  the  barges  were  built  after  a  man- 
"  ner  that  they  were  exceeding  tight,  and 
"that  they  would  hold  water  like  unto  a 
"  dish,  and  the  bottom  thereof  was  tight  like 
"unto  a  dish,  and  the  sides  thereof  were 
"  tight  like  untoa  dish,  and  the  ends  thereof 
"  were  peaked,  and  the  top  thereof  was  tight 
"  like  unto  a  dish,  and  the  length  thereof 
"was  the  length  of  a  tree,  and  the  door 
"  thereof  when  it  was  shut  was  tight  like 
"untoa  dish."  As  clear  as  mud  thereof. 
"  Behold  the  Lord  said  thou  shalt  make  an 
"  hole  in  the  top  thereof,  and  in  the  bottom 
"  thereof,  and  when  thou  art  in  want  of  air 
"  thou  shalt  unstop  the  hole  thereof,  and 
"receive  air,  and  if  it  be  that  the  water 
"come  in  upon  thee  thou  shalt  stop  the 
"  hole  thereof  (hole  of  water)  that  ye  may 
"not  perish  in  the  flood." 

"And  he  put  the  stones  in  the  vessels 
"which  were  prepared,  one  in  each  end 
"thereof,  and  behold  they  did  give  light 
"  unto  the  vessels  thereof."  (Vessels  of 
"  the  ends  of  course.) 


1*2 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


What  sense  in  this:  "Never  has  man 
"  come  before  me  with  such  exceeding  faith 
"as  thou  hast,  for  were  it  so  ye  could  not 
"have  seen  my  finger."  "The  Scriptures 
"  are  before  ye,  if  ye  shall  arrest  them  (what 
harm  have  the  Scriptures  done  that  they 
should  be  arrested  ?)  it  shall  be  to  your  own 
destruction."  Take  such  English  as  the 
following :  as  "  the  fullness  of  the  Gospel." 
"The  Lord  spake  and  sayeth."  "  Dwindle 
Into  unbelief."  "I  saw  rumors  of  wars." 
*'The  walls  were  rent  in  twain."  That  is, 
several  walls  were  rent,  and  when  the  rend- 
ing was  done  there  were  two  walls.  "Be- 
come worse  than  as  though  he  had  never 
known  these  things."  "He  that  eatteth  of 
this  bread  «»atteth  to  their  soul."  "Bury 
weapons  of  peace."  "I  ought  not  to  har- 
row up  in  my  desires  the  firm  decrees  of  a 
just  God,"  No,  no,  Sidney,  you  shouldn't 
orter  do  any  such  orful  thing  as  that.  "Sent 
forth  to  preach  among  the  people,  &c." 
What  a  revelation  of  truth  there  is  in  an 
"&c?"  "No  afflictions  save  swallowed 
up  in  joy,"  is,  I  suppose,  what  the  Dutch- 
man meant  when  he  told  of  a  "  schweet 
pain."  "Stabbed  by  a  garb  of  secrecy." 
What  a  hole  that  would  make  in  a  fellow. 
"  The  more  part  of  a  history."  "  The  more 
part  of  the  ministry."  "Shepherd  hath 
called  and  art  calling."  "Nevertheless 
they  did  not  remain  a  perfect  peace." 
"They  yieldeth."  "  I  the  Lord  delighteth  in 
the  chastity  of  women."  ''Ye  are  like 
unto  they."  "Do  as  ye  hath  hitherto 
done."  "These  things  had  not  ought  to 
be."  "Plates  of  which  hath  been  spoken." 
'Law  had  ought  to  be  done  away." 
'Knowledge  of  they  which  art  in  Jerusa- 
'  lem  concerning  they  which  shall  be  scat- 
'  tered  unto  they  which  art  of  the  house  of 
'  Israel,  unto  all  they  that  believe,  unto  all 
11  they  which  are  filled  with  the  spirit." 
"  I  had  spoke  many  things."  "  They  saith 
unto  the  King."  "I  who  ye  call  your 
king."  "  Moroni  had  wrote." 

The  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants 
contains  such  inspiration  as  the  following : 
"I  the  Lord  willeth."  "Verily  I  say  unto 
you  for  this  once."  "I  the  Lord  justifieth 
you."  "I  the  Lord  maketh  you  free." 
"For  lo  and  behold  saith  the  Son  Anmon, 
"  or  in  other  words  Alphus,  or  in  other 
"  words  Omegus,  once  Jesus  Christ,  your 
"Lord."  Alphus  and  Omegus  are  new 
Greek  letters,  never  heard  ol  by  Pericles. 
"  It  is  expedient  in  me."  "  All  they  shall 
be  comforted."  "  All  they  should  gather 
together."  "Did  moulten  out  of  a  rock." 
"  And  this  servant  went  and  did  all  things 
whatsoever."  We  will  submit  a  couum- 
drum  to  our  opponent :  What  did  this  sen- 
tence, on  page  244  of  the  old  edition  of  the 
Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  mean? 
"That ye  go  to  make  use  of  the  steward- 
ship which  I  have  appointed  unto  you  ex- 
clusive of  the  sacred  things  for  the  purpose 
of  shine  love  these  things."  We  have  put 
In  these  beauties  of  the  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants  to  show  that  Mormon  reve- 
lations are  sui  generis;  there  is  nothing  like 
them.  Admire  sufficiently,  if  you  can, 


such  beauties  as  the  following:  "Now  the 
joy  of  Amron  was  great,  even  that  he  was 
full,  yea  he  was  swallowed  up  in  joy  of  his 
God,  even  to  the  exhaustion  of  his  strength, 
and  he  fell  again  to  the  earth.  Now  was 
that  not  exceeding  great  joy?"  Yea,  verily 
Sidney,  it  was. 

"There  were  no  robbers  nor  murderers, 
neither  were  there  Lamanites,  or  any  other 
manner  of  ites."  Sidney  Rigdon  all  over. 

We  have  reserved  the  climax  of  Mormon 
Inspiration  to  the  last.  Page  327.  "And 
"Moroni  went  forth  among  the  people 
"  waving  the  rent  of  his  garment  in  the  air 
"  that  all  the  people  might  see  the  writing 
"  that  he  wrote  upon  the  rent."  There  now 
doubt  if  you  dare  that  the  Book  of  Mormon 
is  of  Divine  origin.  The  one  who  hid  up 
the  plate  that  Impostor  Joe  translated  went 
forth  waving  a  hole  that  the  people  might 
see  the  writing  he  had  WROTE  on  the 
hole.  I  never  heard  of  but  one  instance  to 
rival  this.  An  old  chap  who  lived  in 
Trumbull  county,  Ohio,  used  to  tell  that  in 
a  freshet  in  the  Mississippi  river  it  washed 
away  so  much  of  a  bank  that  was  full  of 
kingfisher's  holes,  that  it  left  the  holes 
sticking  out  into  the  air  fifty  feet.  The  hole 
that  Moroni  waved  in  the  air,  and  on 
which  he  had  wrote  the  writing  that  the 
people  "might  see  what  he  had  wrote  on  the 
hole  must  have  been  like  the  old  fellow  s 
kingfisher's  holes. 

The  adaptations  and  imitations  of  modern 
literature  and  the  Bible  expose  the  fraud  TI- 
lent  character  of  the  Book  of  Morman.  In 
the  first  book  we  have  the  revival  power  of 
animal  magnetism  imitated  600  years  before 
Christ.  Pages  23  to  28  John's  Apocalypse 
imitated  and  the  Church  of  Rome  describ- 
ed, as  only  history  can  describe  it.  Page 
24.  The  American  Revolution  described. 
Pages  176,  180,  181,  243,  245,  272  and  373  are 
imitations  of  Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs.  Pages 
196-7  a  weak  imitation  of  Paul's  conver- 
sion. Page  202  teaches  the  modern  radical 
democratic  idea  of  vox  populi  vox  Dei. 
Pages  226,  246.  Peter's  deliverance  is  imi- 
tated. Ananias  lying  to  tueLord  imitated. 
Page  223.  All  spiritual  gifts  enjoyed.  Page 
246.  Peter  healing  the  father  of  Aeneas  imi- 
tated. Page  252.  Watering  of  Jethro's 
flocks  by  Moses  imitated  Pages  256  and 
266.  The  fall  down  power  of  modern  revivals 
is  imitated.  Page  289.  Episcopalians  preach 
from  high  pulpits,  and  have  liturgies  and 
on  the  Lord's  Day,  something  never  dream- 
ed of  till  after  Christ.  322.  An  inspired 
prophet  scalps  his  enemy  just  like  any 
other  "  big  injun"  who  .takes  "  heap  much 
scalp."  Page  391.  The  delivery  of  the 
Hebrews  from  the  fiery  furnace  imitated. 
Pages  406-407.  Elijah's  miracle  of  drought 
and  rain  imitated.  Page  480.  Daniel  cast 
into  the  lion's  den  imitated.  Page  438. 
Candles  invented.  Page  436.  The  raising 
from  the  dead  by  Jesus  and  others 
imitated.  Page  456.  The  miracle  of  the 
loaves  and  fishes  imitated  by  making  the 
institution  of  the  Supper  just  like  it. 
Pages  226  and  231.  Peter  and  Cornelius  imi- 
tated. Scenes  at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


darkness,  rending  rocks,  raising  of  the 
dead,  imitated,  only  Sydney  far  out-does 
the  New  Testament  writers.  Thomas  put- 
ting his  ringers  in  nai!  prints  and  side  imi- 
tated, only  Sydney  has  over  2500  spend  ten 
or  twelve  hours  in  such  A  performance. 
An  attempt  to  imitate  our  Saviour's  lan- 
guage to  Peter  about  John's  tarrying  here 
absurdly  changed  in  to  his  saying  and  doing 
what  th«  New  Testament,  (John  himself 
being  the  writerjsays  he  did  uotsay  or  do. 
Page  614.  Daughter  of  Herodias  imitaied. 
Page  £JO.  Daniel's  interpreting  the  hand 
writing  on  the  wall  instated.  Solomon  imi- 
tated 519. 

These  are  only  a  portion  of  the  adaptations 
and  imitations.  So  servilely  does  Rigdon 
opy  ulie  Bible,  and  especially  the  Now 
Testament  th  it  all  his  prophets  and  preach- 
ers preach  and  prophecy  just  as  the  Bible 
preachers  and  prophets  speak,  using  their 
exact  language  much  *f  the  time  except 
when  they  preach  lligdon's  special  hobbies. 
The  Jaredites  who  came  to  America  from 
the  Tower  of  Babel  have  the  complete  gos- 
pel preached  among  them  before  the  days 
of  Abraham.  No  Israelite  prophet  was  ev- 
er favored  with  such  revelations,  not  even 
Isaiah  as  Jared's  brother. 

I  challenge  my  opponent  to  name  an  im- 
portant Chistian  idea,  or  important  idea  of 


modern  theology  that  Rigdon  does  not  pub 
into  the  mouth  of  his  Nephites.  His  gross 
illiteracy  appears  tn  ths  fact  that  he  did 
not  see  that  he  was  exposing  his  owa  hand 
and  work  and  voice  as  clearly  as  he  ever 
did  in  any  sermon  b>  preached.  It  is 
the  most  transparent  Ciuudering  /raud  ev- 
er attempted 

By  actual  careful  count  the  plagiarisms 
from  the  New  Testament  of  paragraphs, 
phrases  and  sentences  ar?  over  500  The 
quotations  of  phrases  amount  to  hundreds. 
There  are  over  ten  in  each  page  of  Rigdon's 
sermon  against  infant  Baptism.  Pages 
3JO  340,341.  Whole  chapters  are  auoted. 

Isaiah  \\  to  XIV. 

xxr. 

XLVIII. 

L 

LIE. 

LIV. 

Malachi  III. 

Matthew  V    VT.  VII. 

II  Corinthians  XIII. 

One-eighteenth  ol  the  Book  is  stolen  by 
chapters.  If  we  add  to  this  paragraphs  and 
verses  fully  one-twelfth :  if  we  add  phrases 
fully  one-eight;  if  we  enumerate  ideas  stol- 
en, adapted  or  imitated,  we  have  the  entire 
religious  portion  of  the  Book  except  its 
Rigdonisms. 


MR.  KELLEY'S   FIFTEENTH    SPEECH] 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLKMEN  :  Whon  I  closed  my  remarks 
last  evening,  it  was  with  a  record  of  some  of 
the  discoveries  of  this  rountry  that  I  claim 
to  be  corroborative  evidence  of  the  truth 
and  divinity  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  The 
author  from  whom  I  was  reading  gives  cuts, 
representations  and  descriptions  of  many 
of  those  cliff  dwellings  and  cities  which  are 
in  direct  connection  with  my  proofs  here, 
but  I  will  not  take  the  time  to  read  farther 
at  present,  as  I  wish  to  examine  the  objec- 
tions so  far  as  presented  by  my  opponent, 
and  present  also  another  line  of  proofs  ob- 
tained by  the  researches  of  explorers  and 
scientists,  and  introduce  others  touching 
particularly  upon  the  individual  identity  of 
the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  which 
it  is  claimed  lived  in  a  highjy  civilized  and 
enlightened  state  upon  this  continent. 

Von  Humboldt  in  his  Equinoctial  Regions 
of  America,  vol.  1,  pages  16  and  269,  refers 
to  the  finding  of  the  bones  of  the  megathe- 
rium and  megalonyx  on  this  continent,  but 
reports  them  as  extremely  scarce.  He  also 
states  in  same  work :  "That  natulraist,  M. 


Cuvier,  has  also  recognized  two  new  species 
of  mastodons  and  an  elephant  among  the 
fossil  bones  of  quadrupeds  which  we 
brought  from  America.'' 

Prof.  Winchell,  in  his  Sketches  of  Crea- 
tion published  in  1874,  pages  356  and  357* 
says :  "  In  the  United  States  we  detect  also 
some  evidences  of  the  co-existence  of  man 
and  extinct  species  of  quadrupeds.  Dr. 
Koch,  the  reconstructor  of  the  Tertiary 
Zeuglodon,  insisted  long  ago  that  be  had 
found  in  Missouri  such  an  association  of 
Mastodon  and  Indian  remains  as  to  prove 
that  the  two  had  lived  cotemporaneously. 
"I  have  myself  (says  the  author)  ob- 
served the  bones  of  the  mastodon  and  ele- 
phant imbedded  in  peat  at  depths  so  shal- 
low that  I  could  readily  believe  the  animals 
to  have  occupied  the  country  during  its  pos- 
session by  the  Indians,  and  g'av,  ,>ublicatiou 
to  this  conviction  in  1862."  "  More  recently 
(he  says)  Prof.  Holmes,  of  Charleston,  has 
informed  the  Academy  ol  Natural  Sciences 
of  Philadelphia  that  he  finds  upon  the 
banks  of  the  Ashley  river  a  remarkable 
conglomeration  of  fossil  remains  in  deposits 


164 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


of  post-tertiary  age.  Remains  of  the  hog, 
horse,  and  other  animals  of  recent  date,  to- 
gether with  human  bones,  stone  arrow- 
heads hatchets  and  fragments  of  pottery 
arp  tfcere  lying  mingled  with  the  bones  of 
the  mastodon  and  extinct  gigantic  lizzards. 
Cotemporary  with  these  American  animals, 
but  not  yet  found  associated  in  their  re- 
mains with  the  relics  of  the  human  species, 
lived  in  North  America  horses  much  larger 
tnan  the  existing  species,  grazing  in  com- 
pany with  wild  oxen  (another  of  Braden's 
miracles  ;  this  is  Alex.  Winchell,  LL.  D., 
Prof,  of  Geology,  Zoology  and  Botany  in  the 
University  of  Michigan  who  discovers  this 
rmracle)  and  herds  of  bisons  and  shrub- 
Joving  tapirs.  The  streams  were  dammed 
by  (he  labors  of  gigantic  beavers,  while  the 
lorests  afforded  a  range  for  a  species  of  hog, 
and  a  grateful  dwelling-place  for  numerous 
edentate  quadrupeds  related  to  the  sloth, 
tut  of  gigantic  proportions." 

Short,  in  his  North  Americans  of  Antiqui- 
ty) page  530,  published  in  1882,  says :  "  The 
question  as  to  whether  man  and  the  masto- 
don, were  cotemporaneous  in  America  has 
long  been  a  matter  of  dispute,  as  the  reader 
is  aware."  Then  he  cites  the  elephant  pipe 
discovered  six  or  eight  years  ago  by  a 
farmer  living  on  the  line 'dividing  Musca- 
tine  and  Louisa  counties,  Iowa.  He  says : 
"  The  finder,  who  had  no  idea  of  its  archaeo- 
logical value,  kept  it  with  a  number  of  '  In- 
dian stonjes,'  as  he  termed  them,  until  last 
year  (1878),  when  it  became  the  property  of 
the  Davenport  Academy."  Dr.  Farquarson 
says:  "The  ancient  mounds  were  very 
abundant  in  that  vicinity  (Louisa  county), 
and  rjoh  in  relics,  which  are  deposited  *on 
the  surface  of  the  soil,  not  in  excavations." 
"  Then,"  says  the  author,  "the  pipe,  which 
i?  of  a  fragile  sandstone,  is  of  the  ordinary 
mound-builders'  type,  and  has  every  ap- 
pearance of  its  age  and  usage — of  its  gen- 
uineness I  have  no  doubt.  .Together  with 
the  elephant  mound  of  Wisconsin,  the  ele- 
phant head  of  Palenque  depicted  in  Lord 
Kingsborough's  work,  our  pipe  completes 
the  series  of  what  the  French  would  call 
1  documents,'  proving  the  fact  of  the  cotem- 
poraneous existence  on  this  continent  of 
man  and  the  mastodon." 

I  might,  in  this  connection,  refer  you  to 
the  late  article  in  the  Chicago  Advance,  by 
Professor  Wright,  of  Oberlin  College,  upon 
the  "Animal  mounds,"  ancient  earthworks 
of  Wisconsin,  particularly  describing, 
*mong  others,  the  elephant  mound  before 
referred  to,  and  from  certain  features  which 
are  presented  it  seems  that  the  Professor  is 
doubtful  as  to  whether  he  should  believe  it 
was  intended  to  represent  the  elephant  or 
some  other  animal.  "The  mound  is  135  feet 
long,  60  feet  broad  (from  the  bottom  of  his 
feet  to  his  back),  with  a  trunk  or  proboscis 
30  feet  long.  The  head  Is  large,  and  the 
proportions  of  the  whole  are  symmetrical." 

Now  it  is  just  possible  after  all  that  the 
difficulty  in  identifying  this  mound  arises 
from  the  fact  that  one  of  the  other  animals 
referred  to  in  th6  Book  of  Mormon  in  con- 
nection with  the  elephant  is  that  repre- 


sented ;  but,  whether  this  or  the  elephant, 
it  is  true  that  the  existence  of  all  of  these 
animals,  and  the  fact  that  they  were  co- 
temporaneous with  man,  was  published 
boldly  to  the  world  in  1830,  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  when  these  things  were  unknown 
to  the  world,  and  no  scientist  has  since 
made  discoveries  which  are  at  variance 
with  it. 

The  force  of  this  corroborative  testimony 
will  be  readily  seen  when  we  consider  for  a 
moment  the  overwhelming  evidence  which 
subsequent  developments  had  bioughl 
against  the  book,  had  it  in  its  full  and  clear 
statements  upon  like  things  omitted  to 
have  even  mentioned  the  sheep,  the  horse, 
the  ox,  the  elephant,  the  curelom,  thecum- 
mom,  and  many  others,  or  had  given  an  en- 
tirely different  class  of  animals  from  these. 
1  tell  you,  my  friends,  that  with  this  work 
in  my  hands,  I  can  substantiate  the  faci 
that  God  is,  and  that  there  is  truth  in  th9 
narrative  that  Jesus  Christ  was  his  Bon, 
and  came  into  the  world  to  help  fallen  hu- 
manity. Is  this  a  bad  thing  for  Christian- 
ity? is  it  not  well  entitled  to  the  respect 
and  belief  of  all  Christian  people?  I  am 
well  aware  of  the  fact  that  for  the  past  50 
years  people  have  been  crying  out  deceiver 
and  imposter,  and  trying  to  ridicule  and 
laugh  this  people  down  ;  and  even  went  so 
far  in  Missouri  and  Illinois  as'to  try  to  put 
them  down  by  force.  But  in  comparing 
men  with  men  as  I  have  found  them  in 
all  grades  of  society  in  this  country  and 
in  all  the  industries  and  professions  of  life, 
I  unhesitatingly  state  before  you,  that  for 
ability  of  thought,  clearness  of  perception 
and  honesty  of  purpose  and  determination, 
I  have  met  with  none  who  excel  this  same 
people,  and  but  few  societies  that  will  equal 
or  compare  with  them.  The  day  of  silly 
stories,  fabricated  falsehoods,  and  old  wives, 
tales  is  of  the  past.  If  there  are  objections 
worthy  of  consideration,  we  have  plenty  of 
men  and  women  who  are  able  and  willing 
to  examine  them  ;  and  I  call  upon  this  giant 
in  debate  to  stop  his  spinning  of  yarns  told 
about  the  Saints,  and  bring  forward  one 
argument  or  proof  that  he  is  willing  to 
stand  by. 

Returning  to  these  corroborative  scien- 
tific evidences,  I  again  refer  you  to  Sketches 
of  Creation,  page  362:  "The  primeval  in- 
habitants of  North  America  were  Asiatics 
in  their  features,  their  language  and  their 
arts,  and  tradition  speaks  of  them  as  mov- 
ing from  the  direction  of  Asia.  These  move- 
ments of  human  populations  like  radiating 
streams  from  the  western  part  of  Asia,  cer- 
tainly afford  a  presumption  that  the  only 
people  of  whose  movement  we  have  neithe'r 
history,  tradition  nor  buried  monument, 
proceeded  also  from  the  direction  of  the 
orient.  From  the  same  quarter  of  the  world 
proceeded  most  of  our  domestic  animals  and 
plants,  and  in  the  same  quarter  of  the  world 
•the  perpetually  uttered  prophecies  of  the 
geologic  ages  proclaimed  that  the  line  of 
animal  life  should  have  its  culmination." 

These  are  the  thoughts  of  the  learned. 
Now,  who  is  ready  to  say  that  the  critio 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


155 


Ism  of  Mr.  Braden  was  a  smart  one  against 
the  book  for  bringing  the  domestic  animals, 
the  fish,  and  the  seeds  of  the  earth,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  across  the  broad  ocean.  He 
would  have  you  believe  that  these  animals 
came  over  themselves.  Especially  the  fish. 
"Just  listen  to  the  nonsense,"  he  says  ; 
"took  the  fish  in  the  boat  to  keep  them  from 
being  drowned  in  the  water."  When  he 
produces  the  example  of  a  fresh  water  fish 
from  the  old  world  swimming  the  briny 
ocean  and  safely  landing  on  the  coast  of 
America,  it  will  be  time  enough  for  the 
facetious  ridicule  of  the  eight  vessels  or 
barges  which  brought  the  Jaredites  and 
certain  animals  and  fish  to  the  continent. 

Then  the  eight  "vessels  or  barges"  are 
ridiculed  ;  spoken  of  as  a  canoe,  the  reflec- 
tion made  that  they  were  dug  out  of  a  tree. 
I  will  read  it :  "The  Lord  said,  go  to  work 
and  build  after  the  manner  of  barges  which 
ye  have  hitherto  built." 

How  did  these  people  build  them  before? 
Turn  back  to  page  £02,  where  we  have  the 
account  of  their  departure  and  journey  to- 
ward the  sea.  "And  they  did  also  lay 
snares  and  catch  fowls  of  the  air  [not  every 
one  as  he  represented  to  you]  ;  and  they  did 
also  prepare  a  vessel  in  which  they  did  carry 
with  them  the  fish  of  the  waters ;  [any- 
thing strange  about  that?  Have  we  not  got 
fish  commissioners  in  almost  every  State  in 
the  Union,  whose  business  is  to  transplant 
fish  and  stock  the  many  lakes  and  rivers?] 
"and  they  did  also  carry  with  them  deseret, 
which,  by  interpretation,  is  honey  bee  ;  and 
thus  they  did  carry  with  them  swarms  of 
bees  and  all  manner  of  that  which  was 
upon  the  face  of  the  land,  seeds  of  every 
kind." 

Here  then  we  have  the  first  vessel  built, 
and  it  is  no  canoe,  but  sufficient  to  hold  for 
a  short  time  many  things;  not  everything, 
however,  as  he  represented.  Turning  back 
now  to  the  vessels,  the  length  of  which 
"was  the  length  of  a  tree,"  I  read :  "And 
the  door  thereof,  when  it  was  shut,  was 
tight,  like  unto  a  dish." 

How  many  canoes  with  doors  did  you 
ever  see?  In  his  anxiety  to  get  "the  bottom 
thereof  tight  and  the  sides  thereof  tight," 
(  what  is  the  use  of  laboring  to  make  them 
tight  if  it  is  a  dug  out?)  "and  the  ends 
thereof  peaked,"  heinnocently  forgets  that 
"the  dooi  thereof"  must  be  large  enough 
for  this  mighty  man  whose  name  he  would 
like  to  know,  to  go  in  at ;  and  for  such  ani- 
mals as  were  to  be  inmates  thereof  to  go  in 
at,  whether  the  camel,  the  elephant  or  the 
whale.  The  larger  the  animals  he  puts  in, 
the  larger  he  must  make  the  door,  and  the 
larger  the  door  the  larger  the  vessel.  I 
will  now  read  to  you  what  the  book  says, 
page  510: 

"And  it  came  to  pass  that  when  they  had 
prepared  all  manner  of  food  that  thereby 
they  might  subsist  upon  the  water,  and 
also  food  for  their  flocks  and  herds  and 
whatsoever  beast  or  animal  or  fowl  that 
they  should  carry  with  them." — "Whatso- 
ever beast,  animal  or  fowl  that  they  should 
carry  with  them." — They  did  not  carry  all 


then?  Oh  no;  well,  is  that  the  way  you 
understood  Braden?  Why  did  you  try  to 
make  this  audience  think  they  brought 
everything  as  fully  as  Noah  had  in  the  ark? 
But  neither  you,  nor  any  other  man  caii 
show  but  what  these  eight  vessels  would 
hold  more  than  the  ark.  Then  what  be- 
comes of  the  criticism.  O,  he  says,  it  had  a 
hole  in  the  top  and  a  hole  in  the  bottom  ; 
how  large  he  don't  know,  yet  he  speculates 
upon  it  as  though  he  did.  It  would  be 
presumed  that  a  person  who  knew  enough 
to  build  a  boat  would  also  know  enough  to 
put  a  hole  in  it,  if  directed,  in  proportion  to 
the  size  of  the  same  and  the  use  to  be  made 
of  the  opening  ;  and  in  the  bottom  as  well  as 
the  top.  This  description  of  these  vessels 
is  in  favor  of  the  inspiration  of  the  book 
rather  than  against  it.  There  is  not  a  pro- 
bability in  favor  of  the  idea  that  as  early 
as  1829,  there  was  a  man  in  ten  millions 
who  was  able  to  read  and  write  and  who 
was  getting  up  a  work  of  fiction,  who  would 
have  ever  thought  in  describing  a 
boat  of  such  a  thing  as  putting 
a  hole  in  the  bottom.  Yet  in  the 
time  of  fifty  years  it  has  become  quite 
common.  Our  best  Life-boat  is  made  upon 
that  principle.  I  have  seen  it  myself.  And 
the  bottom  thereof  was  tight  like  unto  a 
dish,  and  the  sides  thereof  were  tight  like 
unto  a  dish,  and  the  ends  thereof  were 
peaked ;  and  the  manner  of  building  it  is, 
that  after  it  is  built  the  holes  are  made  in 
the  vessel  and  in  the  bottom  too;  and  suffi- 
ciently large  to  empty  itof  the  water  if  filled, 
in  a  few  seconds  ;  and  the  length  thereof 
was  not  quite  the  length  of  a  tree.  And  it 
is  the  very  boat  that  is  used  by  the  United 
States  Signal  Service,  altogether  on  the 
Pacific  coast,  so  stated  by  the  gentleman  in 
charge  of  the  Signal  Service  Department  in 
Washington  to  me  when  he  showed  me  the 
boat,  and  not  only  is  it  used  in  the  United 
States  Signal  Service,  but  in  the  British 
Signal  Service  also.  Yet  his  sportive  de- 
scription of  a  like  ressel  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  is  the  best  that  can  be  said  against 
the  book  to  prove  it  is  not  of  divine  origin 
and  not  entitled  to  the  respect  and  belief  of 
all  Christian  people. 

Ah!  hut  he  has  made  another  objection, 
a  terrible  one.  What  is  it,  you  ask  ?  This 
is  it: — There  is  so  much  of  the  Campbellite 
faith  in  it.  Yes  ;  but  you  will  see,  my 
friends,  how  much  Campbellite  faith  there 
is  in  it  before  these  discussions  are  over! 
There  is  in  truth  hardly  to  be  found  so 
much  as  was  left  of  the  Jaredites,  after  they 
had  "fit,  and  fit,  and  fit,  and  fit."  Tell  me 
the  faith  that  is  a  living  active  principle  as 
taught  in  the  Book  "of  Mormon  was  taken 
from  the  CampbellitfS !  They  never  believed 
or  taught  the  principle  of  restoration  in 
repentance  as  set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon :  Nor  did  Sidney  Rigdon  till  after  his 
conversion  to  the  faith  the  last  part  of  the 
year  1830.  They  never  taught  nor  believed 
In  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  except  as  a 
thing  of  the  past,  nor  did  Rigdon  till  after 
1830.  They  never  believed  in  contending 
for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints  as 


166 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


that  book  teaches;  but  they  contended  for 
only  a  part  of  it,  a  very  small  part  at  that ; 
neither  did  Ri.srdon  till  after  his  conver- 
sion in  1830.  They  never  belie>ed  in  a 
divine  call  to  the  ministry,  nor  do  they  now, 
claim  that  their  ministers  are  so  called; 
nor  did  Sidney  Rigdon  till  after  his  conver- 
sion in  1830.  They  do  not  believe  in  the 
laying  on  of  hands  for  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
8pirit,  nor  did  Rigdon  till  after  his  conver- 
sion in  1830.  They  do  not  believe  hi  God 
answering  the  penitent  child  for  wisdom 
by  any  communication  directly  to  him,  or 
by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor 
did  Rigdon  till  1830.  They  do  not  believe 
in  the  signs  of  the  Gospel  as  spoken  of  by 
Jesus  attending  the  believer,  nor  did  Rig- 
don till  1830. 

They  do  not  believe  in  the  organization  of 
the  C&iLrcb  as  spoken  of  in  the  12th  of  Cor., 
lOtb  of  Matt.,  and  4th  of  Eph.,  nor  did  Rig. 
don  till  1830.  The  Book  of  Mormon  teaches 
all  of  these  things;  that  God  not  only  is, 
but  is  willing  to  sh«d  forth  his  Spirit  in  the 
heart  crying  Abba,  Father !  and  many 
more  things  I  might  mention  which  Rig- 
don nor  none  of  the  Campbellite  Church 
believed  till  after  the  publication  of  this 
work.  Then  will  he  still,  without  a  shadow 
of  proof,  continue  to  assert,  "  Rigdon  did 
it?"  Because,  forsooth,  he  left  Braden's 
Society  and  sought  one  whose  faith  is  more 
nearly  in  accord  with  the  Bible,  and  man- 
fully fought  his  way  in  life  for  what  he  hon- 
estly from  the  heart  believed  to  be  true, 
and  died  as  he  lived,  taught  his  friends  and 
his  children  the  faith  as  he  received  it  in 
1880 — will  Braden,  because  of  vengeance 
and  spite,  continue  the  assault  upon  his 
dead  bones?  My  opponent  will  never  make 
a  case  by  such  a  course  that  will  stand  the 
test.  Not  even  as  much  will  be  left  of  it  as 
•was  left  of  the  "Kilkenny  cats."  He  may 
have  a  couple  of  tails  left,  but  they  are 
shown  to  be  putrid  and  rotten  ones.  But 
he  says  the  book  teaches  that  two  nations 
existed  here  and  killed  each  other  in  their 
£reat  battles.  So  it  does,  and  so  does  science. 
It  teaches  that  the  enlightened  were  slain. 
So  do  scientists  and  archaeologists.  It 
teaches  that  they  had  their  battles  and  de- 
fenses, and  signals  for  alarms  and  watch- 
towers  from  the  Ohio  to  New  York,  and 
nearly  all  over  the  country  :  so  does  scien- 
tific research.  Mr.  Short,  in  his  North 
Americans  of  Antiquity,  page  50,  says: 
"The  military  works  of  the  mound-build- 
ers, other  than  those  previously  mentioned 
as  existing  on  the  lakes  and  in  western  New 
York  State,  are  of  a  two-fold  chaiacter, 
consisting  first,  of  fortified  eminences,  of 
which  an  instance  is  found  in  Butler  county, 
Ohio."  He  then  describes  this  and  others, 
among  which  is  the  remarkable  one  known 
as  Fort  Ancient,  Ohio,  on  the  Little  Miami 
river,  a  description  of  which  was  given  to 
the  public  by  Professor  Locke  in  1843.  The 
•whole  circuit  of  this  work  is  between  four 
and  five  miles.  The  number  of  cubic  yards 
of  excavation  may  be  approximately  esti- 
mated at  628,800.  The  embankment  stands 
in  places  twenty  feet  in  perpendicular 


height.    The  most  interesting  and  valuable 

Kiper  on  this  work  is  that  by  Mr.  L.  M. 
osea,  of  Cincinnati,  in  the  Quarterly  Jour- 
nal of  Science,  October,  1S74,  page  287,  et 
»eq.  Judges  Dundery  and  Force,  the  latter 
in  a  memoir  on  the  mound-builders,  (1872,) 
estimate  the  period  at  a  thousand  years 
while  Mr.  Hosea  thinks  several  thousand 
years  would  be  required  to  produce  the  nu- 
merous little  hillocks  and  depressions  which 
mark  the  spot  where  trees  have  fallen  and 
decayed. 

These  men  of  science  place  it  a  thousand 
years  back  as  the  time  when  that  fort  must 
have  been  last  occupied,  and  that  is  not  a 
great  way  from  the  time  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon fixed  in  1830. 

"  Fort  Ancient,  which  would  have  held  a 
garrison  of  60,000  men  with  their  families 
and  provisions,  was  of  a  line  of  fortifica- 
tions which  extend  across  the  State,  and 
served  to  check  the  incursions  of  the  sav- 
ages of  the  North  in  their  descent  upon  the 
mound-builders'  country." 

Don't  talk  of  families,  gentlemen,  or  Mr. 
Braden  will  have  you  arming  the  babies  ! 

"The  second  class  of  military  works  is 
exceedingly  numerous  on  all  the  water 
courses — existing  not  only  on  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi,  but  on  all  their  tributaries, 
especially  on  the  Muskingum,Scioto,  Miami, 
Wabash,  Illinois,  Kentucky,  and  minor 
streams — are  mounds  which  served  as  out- 
looks." 

Squire  and  Davis  remark  on  this  subject, 
that,  "There  seems  to  have  existed  a  system 
of  defenses  extending  from  the  source  "of  the 
Alleghany  and  Susquehanna  in  NewYork, 
diagonally  across  the  country,  through 
central  and  northern  Ohio,  to  the  Wabash. 
Within  this  range  the  works  which  are 
regarded  as  defensive  are  largest  and  most 
numerous.  The  signal  system,  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  was  employed  through- 
out the  entire  extent  of  this  range  of  works." 

Shall  I  claim  your  time  further  to  show 
what  was  stated  in  the  book  years  before  to 
have  been  since  corroborated  ? 

But  he  calls  them  "  fools  "  for  fighting  so. 
Well,  that  don't  help  the  matter.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  don't  endorse  their  work 
as  having  been  right.  The  question  is,  did 
they  so  live,  and  fight,  and  destroy  each 
other  ?  The  book  says  they  did,  and  that 
there  was  not  only  one  nation,  but  two,  who 
came  to  a  similar  end  in  this  very  country  ; 
and  after  the  people  have  tried  to  laugh  the 
idea  down  for  fifty  years,  explorers  and 
scientists  have  come  in  and  say  they  are 
facts. 

Then  do  they  not  corroborate  the  history 
as  given  in  the  book,  aud  place  it  beyond 
any  doubt  that  the  book  must  stand?  Will 
he  not  answer  to  the  arguments  instead  of 
standing  like  a  schoolboy  and  talking  about 
Kilkenny  cats  ? 

FIRST  HISTORICAL  PUBLICATIONS. 

I  will  now  briefly  refer  you  to  the  time  in 
which  Ancient  America  began  to  be  known 
through  the  reports  of  archaeologists  to  the 
world.  Of  their  journey  to  Guatemala  in 
1839  and  1840,  Stephens  says,  page  124: 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


157 


H  We  did  not  know  that  the  country  was  so 
completely  secluded ;  the  people  are  less 
accustomed  to  the  sight  of  strangers  than 
the  Arabs  around  Mount  Sinai,  and  they 
are  much  more  suspicious.  Col.  Galindo 
was  the  only  stranger  who  had  been  there 
before  us  and  he  could  hardly  be  called  a 
stranger,  for  he  was  a  Colonel  in  the  Cen- 
tral American  service,  and  visited  the  ruins 
under  a  commission  from  the  Government." 

These  are  the  remarks  of  Mr  Stephens, 
who  with  Mr.  Catherwood,  was  under  the 
auspicies  of  the  United  States  Government, 
and  they  required  this  backing  to  get  the 
aid  of  the  Central  American  Government 
as  far  as  it  could  give,  to  protect  them  in 
their  explorations  as  late  as  1839  and  1840, 
in  exploring  and  describing  the  very 
country  and  its  cities,  described  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  in  1828  and  1829.  He  says 
that  no  stranger  except  Col.  Galindo  had 
been  there  before.  And  yet  my  opponent 
wants  to  make  you  believe  that  Sidney  Rig- 
don,  Solomon  Spaulding,  or  Joseph  Smith 
knew  all  about  these  ruins  and  cities  and 
peoples  so  as  to  place  it  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon ;  that  book  placing  the  landing  of  one 
portion  of  the  people  that  came  to  this 
country  in  Yucatan,  the  very  country  that 
is  spoken  of  by  this  eminent  traveler. 

Referring  to  the  explorations  of  Captain 
Del  Rio,  he  says  : 

"The  report  of  Captain  Del  Dlo,  with  the  commen- 
tary of  Dr.  Paul  Felix,  of  New  Guatemala,  deducing 
»n  Egyptian  origin  for  the  people,  through  either  the 
suplneness  or  the  jealousy  of  the  Spanish  Government, 
vag  loekecl'up  in  the  archives  of  Guatemala  until  the 
*!rne  of  the  revolution,  when  by  the  operations  of 
liberal  principals  the  manuscript  came  into  the  hands 
of  an  English  gentleman,  long  a  resident  of  that 
country,  and  an  English  translation  was  published  at 
London  in  1823.  This  was  the  first  notice  in  Europe  of 
the  discovery  of  these  ruins;  and  instead  of  electrify- 
Jng  the  public  mind,  either  from  want  of  interest  in 
the  subject,  distrust,  or  some  other  cause,  so  little 
notice  was  takan  of  it,  that  in  1834,  the  Literary  Gazette, 
a  paper  of  great  circulation  in  London,  announced  it 
as  a  new  discovery  made  by  Col.  Galindo." 

Now  for  a  research  for  the  publication  of 
Captain  Dupaix.  His  expeditions  were 
made  in  1805,  1808,  and  1807,  the  last  of 
which  was  to  Palenque.  The  manuscript 
of  Dupaix,  and  the  designs  of  his  drafts- 
man were  locked  in  the  Cabinet  of 
Natural  History  in  Mexico  till  1828,  when 
M.  Baradere  took  them  from  the  museum, 
"where,"  says  Stephens,  "But  for  this 
accident  they  might  still  have  remained, 
and  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  this 
city  again  been  lost."  "  Afterwards  the 
work  was  first  published  in  France  in  1834 
aud  1835.V 

About  this  time  Lord  Kingsborough  pub- 
lishes his  works,  which,  says  Stephens,  "so 
far  as  Palenque  is  but  a  reprint  of  Dupaix, 
and  then  his  works  iu  Paris  were  four  hun- 
dred dollars  per  copy."  Stephens,  etc., 
297,  298.  Then  he  says,  with  reference  to 
his  own  work,  the  materials  for  which  were 
gathered  in  1840  and  1841,  "  My  object  has 
been,  not  to  produce  an  illustrated  work, 
but  to  present  the  drawings  in  such  an  in- 
expensive form  as  to  place  them  within 
reach  of  the  great  mass  of  our  readers." 
Page  310,  vol.  2. 


Speaking  of  these  buried  cities  in  another 
place  he  says,  "  that  even  Humboldt  had 
never  heard  of,  much  less  seen." 

Do  I  still,  my  friends,  have  to  convince 
some  in  this  audience,  or  even  Mr.  Braden 
himself,  that  there  was  no  general  knowl- 
edge known  to  the  world  to  be  gathered  to 
form  the  basis  to  make  the  history  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Mormon  in  1828  or 
1829,  much  less  1810  and  1811,  when  it  is 
claimed  by  Braden  that  Solomon  Spaulding 
wrote?  The  work  therefor?  is  not  the  work 
of  man  alone,  and  has  a  higher  authority, 
which  proves  its  divinity. 

Continuing  the  question  of  individual 
identity  of  the  remnants  of  the  tribes  of 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  who  formerly  lived 
in  a  civilized  state  upon  this  continent,  and 
Israelitish  tribes  of  the  old  world,  I  intro- 
duce the  analogical  evidence  of  identity  of 
the  family,  as  set  forth  by  Mr.  Delafield, 
page  65. 

He  finds  that  there  is  a  resemblance:  In 
language,  anatomy,  mythology,  uses  of 
writing,  knowledge  of  astronomy,  and  hab- 
its of  burial  of  their  dead. 

The  effrontery  exhibited  in  standing  be- 
fore an  audience  and  asserting  without  the 
least  shadow  of  proof  that  there  are  no  such 
proofs  of  similarity,  is  only  equaled  by  the 
audacity  of  the  statement  that  there  are  no 
proofs  of  the  remains  of  the  horse  on  the 
continent,  or  if  there  were  horses,  as  he 
argued  at  Wilber,  they  were  not  like  our 
horses.  Does  the  Book  of  Mormon  say  that 
they  were  like  our  horses'!  Prof.  Winchell, 
in  his  "Sketches  of  Creation,"  page  210, 
says : 

"It  is  a  curious  fact  that  so  many  generl,  now  extinct 
from  the  continent,  but  living  in  other  quarters  of  the 
globe,  were  once  abundant  on  the  plains  of  North 
America.  Various  species  of  the  horse  have  dwelt 
here  for  a<;es,  and  the  question  reasonably  arises 
whether  the  wild  horses  of  the  Pampas  may  not  have 
been  iudiginous.  Here  too  the  camel  found  a  suitable 
home." 

This  is  the  way  our  scientific  men,  per- 
sons who  are  posted  upon  these  things 
talk. 

In  1877,  there  were  discovered  in  the  fos- 
sil beds  of  Lake  County,  Oregon : 

"Fossil  bones  of  theelephat,  camel,  horse, 
elk  and  reindeer.  The  horse  being  much 
more  abundant  than  either  of  the  others. 
Also  bones  of  other  animals  larger  than 
the  elephant." 

There  are  now  in  the  museums  of  this 
country,  of  Yale  College  and  the  (Smithson- 
ian Institute,  skeletons  of  two  kinds  of 
animals  which  formerly  lived  upon  this 
continent,  either  of  which  is  larger  than  the 
elephant.  Do  I  have  to  call  your  attention, 
to  the  fact  of  the  discoveries  of  Prof.  Marsh, 
who  in  the  "Chicago  Times  Expedition"  to 
the  west  three  years  ago,  found  in  the  peat 
beds  of  Wyoming,  the  bones  of  the  mas- 
todon ? 

The  Book  of  Mormon,  in  the  year  1830, 
was  published,  and  on  page  577  it  mentions 
with  the  horse  the  fact  of  the  existence 
upon  the  continent  of  "elephants,  cureloms, 
and  cumoms  ;"  and  placing  them  in  their 
order  as  to  size,  and  giving  the  nature  of 
the  animals  also,  as  to  disposition,  struct- 


158 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ure,  &c.,  by  saying  they  were  "useful  unto 
man."  Are  these  bold  statements  of  a 
work  claiming  for  itself  ENTIRE  credibility, 
anything  like  the  musings  of  Gulliver's 
travels,  which  we  have  been  referred  to? 

But  the  objection  is  further  made  that  It 
is  like  Gulliver's  travels  as  there  was  no 
beginning  point,  no  directions,  no  stopping 
places  by  which  to  test  it.  The  trouble  is 
the  assertion  is  not  true.  From  the  outset  it 
begins  with  giving  the  names  of  the  parties 
setting  out  upon  the  journey  described.  The 
very  spot  known  to  the  world  from  which 
they  migrated.  The  very  time  and  names 
known  to  the  world  at  the1  time  and  found 
in  history  and  the  Bible,  to-wit,  Lehl,  La- 
ban,  Lemuel,  Ishmael,  &c.  Giving  a  full 
genealogy  of  the  prominent  parties  of  one 
tribe,  running  all  risks  of  being  caught  by 
reason  of  historical  or  other  contradictions, 


or  by  reason  of  disclosures  of  history  or 
discoveries  in  science : — Takes  these  fami- 
lies from  Jerusalem,  giving  direction  of  trav- 
el, distance,  naming  number  of  days  of  trav- 
el in  each  direction,  definitely,  distinctly, 
and  clearly— see  pages  2,  4,  33,  35,  3fi,  41, 
43  of  the  book — giving  a  description  of  the 
country,  the  rivers  crossed,  deserts  passed 
and  mountains  reached,  until  it  lands  them 
upon  the  sea  shore.  And  yet  it  is  persist- 
ently stated  before  you  that  the  account  is 
on  a  par  with  Gulliver's  travels — a  work  of 
fiction  that  pretends  to  give  no  time,  place, 
country,  or  people  or  fact.  Has  he  repre- 
sented it  fairly  or  truthfully  t  Is  there  not 
time,  place,  people,  destination,  race,  char- 
acteristics, habits,  customs  and  the  exact 
present  status  of  descendants  all  given? 
(Time  called.) 


MR.   BRADEN'S    FIFTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :— Kelley  told  you  last  night 
how  Rigdon  exploded  the  Spaulding  story 
in  the  Messenger  and  Advocate.  Would  it 
not  have  been  better  to  have  repeated  the 
explosion,  than  to  have  given  his  unsup- 
ported assertion  that  Rigdon  performed  such 
marvels.  He  repeats  the  story  already  ex- 
posed as  a  fabrication  of  his  own  at  least 
twice  that  Hunbut  got  the  Manuscript 
Found  from  Mrs.  Davidson,  and  Mrs.  Mc- 
Kinstry.  They  only  gave  him  an  order  to 
search  a  trunk  for  it.  He  repeats  his  falsi- 
fication of  the  language  of  Hurl  but ;  that  he 
says  he  got  the  Manuscript  Found.  Hurl- 
but  says  he  did  not  get  it,  but  a  part  of  an  en- 
tirely different  manuscript.  He  repeats 
that  Howe  says  they  got  the  Manuscript 
Found,  and  it  was  not  what  they  expected 
it  to  be.  Howe  says  no  such  thing.  He 
says  the  manuscript  Hurlbut  brought  to 
us  was  not  what  he  expected.  It  was  not 
what  they  expected,  because  it  was  not 
the  Manuscript  Found.  The  assertion  i/hat 
either  Howe  or  Hurlbut  said  they  obtained 
the  Manuscript  Found,  and  it  was  not  what 
they  expected,  is  a  deliberate  fabricaiion  of 
Kelley.  Hurlbut  did  get  the  Manuscript 
Found,  H«  wrote  Mrs.  Davidson  that  he 
did.  But  he  did  not  give  it  to  Howe.  He 
sold  it  to  the  Mormons.  Mr.  Patterson  does 
say  that  he  knew  but  little  of  the  man- 
uscripts jaken  to  the  printing  office.  En- 
glee,  the  foreman,  attended  to  them.  But 
Patterson's  ignorance,  however,  does  not 
set  to  one  side  the  clear  testimony  of 
other  witnesses. 

My  opponent  undertakes  to  ridicule  the 


evidence  I  introduced  as  heresay — "Rev. 
Bonsali  Winter's  stepson  ;  Mrs.  Irwin,  his 
daughter,  and  Rev.  Kirk  said  that  Winter 
told  them."  Let  us  retort.  "Kelley  says  that 
Joseph  III.  says  that  Emma  Smith  says. 
Kelley  says  that  Ho  we  said.  That  Gilbert 
said.  Kelley  says  that  the  Quincy  Whig 
says,  that  Nichols  says,  that  Ely  says,  that 
Mrs.  Davidson  said."  Does  he  not  know 
that  he  commits  murder  on  his  own  testi- 
mony when  he  resorts  to  such  pettifogging? 
My  opponent  has  not  offered  a  scintilla  of 
evidence  that  an  Ehpraimite  ever  entered 
America.  He  tries  to  get  out  of  that  ridh-- 
ulous  blunder  about  oxen.  I  know  tha 
cow  is  used  as  a  generic  name  for  the  genus 
bos  ;  so  is  ox.  But  where  both  are  used  to- 
gether, neither  is  generic;  but  both  are  tl.o 
names  of  a  class  of  the  genus.  ''Cows" 
means  the  females  of  the  genus,  when  used 
with  ox  and  "oxen"  means  an  unnatural 
class  of  the  genus  when  mentioned  with 
cows.  Suppose  instead  of  saying  ''sheep" 
the  Book  of  Mormon  had  said  "ewes"  and 
"wethers."  Would  they  be  generic  names? 
Come,  sir,  you  can't  get  out  of  that  idiotic 
blunder  in  any  such  way.  As  the  Book  of 
Mormon  says  in  one  place  that  darkness 
shall  cover  the  earth  three  days  after  the 
crucifixion,  and  the  Bible  declares  that  it 
was  only  three  hours  and  over  the  land 
about  Jerusalem,  he  cannot  pettifog  away 
the  contradiction.  If  it  was  as  light  as 
mid-day  all  night  how  could  a  star  be  seen 
in  mid-day  light?  My  opponent  has  not 
explained'! t  Low  the  Nepnites  foretold  the 
exact  language  Christ  would  use  to  such  an 
ex  leu  t,  that  whole  pages  are  so  foretold. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE, 


159 


Nor  how  they  come  to  speak  of  the  language 
as  then  in  the  Scriptures,  hundreds  of  years 
before  Christ  and  the  apostles  uttered  it. 
He  asks  me  if  I  know  what  was  in  the  40 
books  known  and  unknown,  quoted  or  re- 
ferred to  by  the  Bible.  I  don't.  But  until 
he  proves  that  the  language  was  in  those 
books,  he  cannot  prove  that  his  Nephites 
quoted  from  them.  Again  if  it  was,  it 
would  only  change  the  absurdity  from  the 
Book  of  Mormon  to  another  book.  Finally, 
we  find  the  language  in  the  New  Testament 
and  we  know  that  neither  Nephite  or  anyone 
else  could  quote  it  until  it  was  uttered,  any 
more  than  they  could  quote  Shakespeare  or 
Pope.  Did  these  unknown  prophets  quote 
from  Shakespeare  and  Pope  thousands  of 
year?  before  they  Jived,  EO  that  Sydney's 
Nephites  could  quote  such  language  from 
them  1  I.  read  from  the  Book  of  Mormon 
denunciations  of  secret  societies,  their  oaths, 
grips,  signs,  pass-words,  all  the  denuncia- 
tions uttered  by  anti-masons  when  the 
Book  of  Mormon  first  appeared.  This  shows 
that  it  was  written  in  that  excitement. 
Science  says  that  the  Asiatic  species  of  our 
domestic  animals  were  not  iu  America  un- 
til introduced  by  Europeans.  The  Book 
of  Mormon  says  they  were — a  flat  contra- 
diction. 

Another  fraud  in  this  affair,  Oliver  Cow- 
dery  began  his  work  of  writing  down  the 
translation  of  the  BOOK  of  Mormon,  the 
Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  de- 
clares, April  17th,  1825.  The  translation 
was  finished,  Mrs.  Smith  says,  early  in 
June.  The  copy-ri^ht  was  taken  out  June 
10th.  Just  to  think  of  a  man  writing  as 
dictated  to  him  slowly  word  by  word  the 
manuscript  of  a  book  as  large  as  the  Old 
Testament,  or  about  2000  pages  of  foolscap 
in  less  than  sixty  days,  thirty-three  pages 
per  <Jiem,  and  the  writer  a  blacksmith  un- 
used to  copying.  Here  is  another  Mormon 
miracle.  Another  fact  that  exposes  the 
fraud  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  It  was  given 
by  miracle  to  Smith  word  by  word  by  the 
Almighty.  Inspired  Joe  called  off  each 
word.  Inspired  Oliver  copied  or  wrote  it 
down.  Inspired  Joe  and  Oliver  read  the 
proofs  of  the  printer.  Of  course  it  was  all 
right.  The  concoctors  of  the  fraud  told 
Gilbert,  the  printer,  that  the  manuscript 
•was  the  work  of  inspiration,  and  it  must 
not  be  changed  a  particle.  It  had  in  it  not 
a  mark  of  punctuation,  not  a  capital  letter 
at  the  beginning  of  sentences,  was  badly 
spelled,  and  the  grammar  was  atrocious. 
The  printer  refused  to  print  such  a  mon- 
strosity. He  was  allowed  to  punctuate 
and  correct  the  spelling  where  he  could. 
When  the  book  appeared  it  had  in  it  thou- 
sands of  errors  and  blunders,  and  of  the 
worst  kind  imaginable. 

We  are  ready  to  expose  another  of  the 
ridiculous  blunders  of  the  fabricators  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  In  translating  from 
one  language  to  another,  if  the  translation 
be  at  all  literal,  there  will  appear  the  idioms 
of  the  original  and  the  idioms  of  the 
tongue  into  which  the  translation  is  made. 
The  former  will  be  the  idioms  of  the  origi- 


nal language  that  were  peculiar  to  it  in  the 
age  in  which  the  book  was  written.  The 
latter  will  be  the  idioms  of  the  language 
into  which  the  translation  is  made.  There 
have  been  scores  of  translations  of  the 
Bible,  from  the  original  into  English,  in 
different  ages.  In  each  appear  the  idioms 
of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  the  idioms 
of  the  English  language  peculiar  to  it  in  the 
age  in  which  the  translation  was  made. 
The  first  belong  to  the  Bible  in  the  original. 
The  latter  to  the  English  translations.  We 
can  tell  in  what  age  each  book  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  was  written  by  the 
former.  We  can  tell  in  what  age  of  the 
English  language  each  translation  was 
made  by  the  latter. 

The  fabricators  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
in  their  gross  ignorance  of  this  fact,  in 
their  attempts  to  imitate  the  Bible,  and  to 
make  the  Book  of  Mormon  like  the  ancient 
Hebrew  so  as  to  accord  with  the  assump- 
tion that  the  authors  were  Hebrews  who 
emigrated  to  America,  have  imitated  the 
idioms  of  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament, 
wherever  it  appears  in  King  James'  ver- 
sion; notwithstanding  the  Nephites  could 
know  nothing  about  that:  and  to  cap  the 
climax  of  absurdity,  they  have  imitated 
the  English  idioms  of  King  James'  transla- 
tors, that  did  not  live  until  1200  years 
after  the  last  Nephite  was  dead.  They 
have  made  the  idioms  of  the  English  lan- 
guage of  16J,1  the  idioms  of  the  Nephites  in 
America  who  lived  hundreds  of  years 
before  there  was  any  English,  and  1200 
years  before  such  idioms  were  used.  We 
can  illustrate  the  absurdity  of  this  blun- 
der by  a  case  like  this.  A  man  who 
knows  nothing  about  the  Old  Testament, 
except  what  he  learns  by  hearing  an  Irish- 
man read  the  original  Hebrew,  and  trans- 
late it  into  Kuglish,  the  Irishman  reading 
the  Hebrew  to  himself  and  giving  the  Eng- 
lish of  it  to  his  auditor,  as  he  reads,  cornea 
before  us  with  a  book  that  he  claims  a» 
angel  gave  to  him  in  Hebrew  manuscript, 
and  that  he  was  inspired  to  translate  ii 
into  English.  When  we  come  to  examine 
it,  we  find  that  he  has  imitated,  not  only 
the  Hebrew  idioms  of  the  Old  Testament, 
that  were  brought  out  iu  the  Irishman's 
translation,  but  has  actually  .imitated  the 
Irishman's  Hibernicisms,  his  brogue,  sup- 
posing in  his  ignorance  that  Paddy  isms 
were  Simon  Pure  Hebraisms.  Would  any 
body  but  a  Mormon  be  such  a  fool  as  not 
to  declare,  in  one  moment,  that  his  ridicu- 
lous putting  of  Paddyismsinto  the  mouth 
of  Hebrew,  exposed  his  story  as  a  lie  and 
a  fraud,  and  his  b  >ok  as  a  ridiculous  blund- 
ering fraud?  Would  it  not  be  as  clear  as 
day? 

In  precisely  the  same  stolidly  ignorant 
manner,  the  fabricators  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon have  put  into  the  mouths  of  Israelites 
in  America,  not  only  the  Hebraisms  that 
are  in  the  King  James'  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  the  Hellenisms  of  th« 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  that  appear 
in  King  James'  translation;  and  what  is 
idiotically  absurd  the  Anglicisms,  the 


Iftft 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


brogue  of  King  James'  translators.  Think 
ot  Israelites  in  America,  thousands  qf  years 
»go,  using  the  brogue  of  King  James* 
translators,  thousands  of  years  before  such 
brogue  was  spoken  by  the  English  them- 
selves. Not  only  so,  but  they  have  imi- 
tated the  incorrect  readings  of  the  manu- 
scripts used  by  those  translators,  as  any  one 
can  see  who  compares  the  plagiarisms  from 
the  Bible,  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  with 
King  James*  version  and  the  late  Canter- 
bury version.  The  Lord  in  giving  the 
translation,  word  by  word,  to  Joe  Smith, 
slavishly  followed  the  incorrect  readings 
of  the  manuscripts,  from  which  King 
Jame's  translators  made  their  translation, 
just  as  they  appear  in  that  translation. 
Not  only  so  but  he  actually  copied  their 
mistranslations  also,  as  one  can  see  by  com- 
paring the  plagiarisms  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon with  King  James'  version  and  the 
Canterbury  version.  Let  me  give  two 
noted  instances.  The  Lord  in  doling  out 
word  by  word,  I  Cor.  xiii.  4,  copied  the 
blunder  of  King  James'  translators  and 
inserted  the  word  "easily"  and  translated 
the  Greek  "  Charity  is  not  easily  provoked;" 
when  every  scholar  knows,  whether  the 
Mormon  God  does  or  not,  that  "easily"  is 
is  not  in  a  single  Greek  manuscript  known 
to  exist.  In  like  manner  in  doling  out 
Isaiah,  xviii,  10,  he  copied  the  blunder  of 
King  James'  translators  and  gave  it  to  Joe, 
"The  Lord  God  and  His  Spirit*  hath  sent 
me"  when  every  scholar  knows,  whether 
the  Mormon  God  does  or  not,  that  it 
should  be  "The  Lord  God  hath  sent  me 
and  His  Spirit,"  i.  e.,  "  He  hath  sent  me 
and  hath  sent  His  Spirit."  This  is  sufficient. 
We  might  give  many  more. 

The  fabricators  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
have  copied  the  obsolete  words,  the  obso- 
lete grammar,  the  violations  of  grammar, 
and  the  punctuation  of  King  James'  ver- 
sion, showing  that  they  were  as  ignorant 
as  the  man  in  our  illustration.  They  have 
copied  the  blunders  of  King  James'  trans- 
lators as  Simon  Pure  Hebraisms,  just  as  he 
copied  the  blunders  of  the  Irishman.  They 
are  like  the  Chinaman  that  a  lady  employed 
to  make  some  plates  to  fill  out  a  set  of 
chinaware.  She  had  but  one  plate  to  give 
him  as  a  pattern  and  it  was  cracked  and 
nicked.  To  her  amazement  and  amusement 
when  John  brought  to  her  the  two  dozen 
plates  she  had  ordered,  every  one  was 
cracked  and  nicked  just  as  the  plate  she 
gave  him.  He  copied  everything,  suppos- 
ing it  to  be  a  part  of  the  pattern.  Just  so 
the  fabricators  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
have  copied  every  crack  and  nick  in  King 
James'  version. 

Another  thing  that  proves  that  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Book  of  Mormon  are  awk- 
ward attempts  to  imitate  i»,  .  ....i  they  are 
such  a  blundering  caricature  of  King  James* 
version.  They  are  as  much  of  a  caricature 
and  as  awkward  as  the  attempt  of  a  New 
England  \  ankee  to  imitate  the  brogue  of 
an  Irishman.  The  paddyisms  are  exagger- 
ated until  the  attempt  is  a  caricature.  The 
41  Beholds,"  "Wherefores,"  "Therefores," 


"Thereofs,"  and  "Now  it  came  to  pass,"  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  are  ridiculously  fre- 
quent and  most  awkwardly  used.  By  actual 
count  nearly  1,700  sentences  have  "Behold" 
at  the  beginning  of  them  or  near  the  begin- 
ning.    Nearly  1,400  have  "  And  it  came  to 
pass."  Nearly  700  have  "therefore."  Nearly 
500  have  "wherefore;"  and  "lo,"  "yea," 
and   "thereof"  are  most  awkwardly  fre- 
quent.   The  awkward  use  of  the  brogue  of 
King  James'  translations  betrays  them  just 
as  the  hackdriver's  blunder  betrayed  him. 
A  great  Quaker  convention  was  assembling 
in  Philadelphia.    Quakers  patronized  tlieir 
own  people.    To  get  customers  one  limb  of 
the  world  put  on  drab  and  a  broad  brim. 
He  looked  all  right,  but  when  he  asked  an 
old  Quaker,  "Where  is  thee's  baggage?" 
the  Quaker  retorted,  "  Away  with  thee  for 
a  cheat."    The  same  is  true  of  the  jargon  of 
the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants.    It 
is  no  more  like  the  brogue  of  King  James' 
version  than  the  talk  of  the  stage  Irishman 
is  like  the  brogue  of  the  genuine  Paddy 
right  from  the"ould  sod."    Mormons  ab- 
surdly seem  to  think  that  the  brogue,  the 
lingo  of  King  James'   translations,    is  the 
genuine  dialect  of  heaven,  and  that  angels 
and  the  Lord  cannot  or  do  not  talk  in  any 
other.  The  Lord  and  angels  spoke  to  Egyp- 
tians in  Egyptian,  to  Philistines  in  their 
dialect,  to  Chaldeans  in  their  tongue,  to  the 
Hebrews  in  Hebrew, and  when  the  Israelites 
ceased  speaking  Hebrew,  Aramaic,Greek,  or 
whatever  was  the  speech  of  the  people  they 
were  addressing ;  but  they  affected  no  an 
tique  brogue,  or  rather  caricature  of  it     If 
the  Lord  had  translated  the  Books  Oi  Mor- 
mon for  Joe  Smith  he  should  have  put  it  in 
decent  English  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
and  not  in  the  obsolete  brogue,  granmiati' 
cal  blunders  and  atrocities  of  King  Jaraes* 
version,  or  rather  in  a  most  absurd,  disgust- 
ing caricature  of  them  in  an  ignoramus  s 
effort  to  imitate  them.    Hardshell  Baptists 
think  that  preaching  is  not  preaching  unless 
in  the  nasal  sing-song  whine  called  "the 
holy  tone,"  and  that  the  most  idiotic  bal- 
derdash is  equal  to  the  preaching  of  angels, 
if  in  that  twang.  So  Mormons  seem  to  think 
that  revelation  is  not  revelation   unless  it 
is  in   the  brogue  of  King  James'  transla- 
tors, and  that  the  most  idiotic  twaddle  ia 
equal  to  the  seraphic  strains  of  Isaiah,  if  in 
that  lingo.    In  their  attempts  to  imitate  it 
they  come  about  as  near  to  it  as  the  Yankee 
schoolboy  does  the  genuine  Hardshell  sing- 
song when  he  attempts  to  declaim  "A  Harp 
of  a  Thousand  Strings." 

Mormons  attempt  to  parry  these  objec- 
tions, by  appealing  to  faults  in  the  Bible. 
We  reply  1.  The  blunders  of  King  James' 
translators,  their  brogue,  is  no  part  of  the 
original,  as  Mormons  are  so  ignorant  as  to 
suppose.  2.  The  messengers  of  God  in  the 
Bible  never  used  an  old  obsolete  brogue,  or 
rather  a  most  awkward,  absurd  caricature 
of  it.  Nor  did  the  Holy  Spirit  make  the 
persons  inspired  perpetrate  such  idiocy 

3.  The  uneducated  Amps  did  not  use  the 
polished  Hebrew  of  Isaiah  or  Jeremiah. 
Nor  did  Peter  use  the  classic  Greek  of 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


161 


Thuoydides.    But  neither  Amos  nor  Peter 
violated  all  laws   of  grammar  and  speech, 
in  their  writings.    Their  language  is  terse 
and  blunt,  but  not  such  an  atrocity  as  the 
balderdash  of  the   Book   of    Mormon    and 
Mormon   revelations.      Will   our  opponent 
give  us  such  a  list  from  the  original  as  we 
have  given  from  the  Book  of  Mormon?    It 
may   be  asked  if  Spaulding,   an   educated 
man,  and  a  person  like  Higdon  were  authors 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  how  could  it  be  full 
of  such  errors?     How  could  they  put  such 
errors  in  it?    Would  not  they  know  enough 
to  avoid  them,  and  would  not  they  do  so? 
We  reply:    1.    Spaulding    has    been    very 
much  overrated.     His  education  could  not 
have  been  what  it  is  claimed  it  was    or  he 
never  would  have  been  so  grossly  ignorant 
as   to    suppose    that    the    brogue    of  King 
James'  translators   was  the  oldest  dialect 
he  could  find,  as  his  wife  tells  he  did.    His 
ridiculous  imitations  of  the  brogue  of  King 
James'  translators,  his  awkward  imitation 
that     caricatured    it,    until   his   neighbors 
ridiculed  it    and    nicknamed     him    "Old- 
came-to-pass,"   and  his  stolidly   retaining 
such  an  ignorant  blunder  to  the  last,  shows 
that  he  has  been  very  much  overrated.    He 
was  doubtless  a  dull  visionary  prosy  pedant 
who  undertook  a  work   for  which  he  was 
utterly  incompetent.     2.  Rigdon  was  very 
illiterate  as  his  letter  to  the  Boston  Journal 
proves,  by  its  misspelled  words,  violations 
of  grammar,  and  utter  ignorance  of  punctu- 
ation, as   the  publishers  describe  it.    His 
education    was    obtained    in  a    log    school 
house.    He  was  never  a  reader  except  of  the 
visionary  and  extravagant.    He  was  a  rant- 
ing,   spread-eagle,   highfaluten    declaimer, 
who  mistook  bombast  for  eloquence,  fustian 
for   rhetoric,   extravagance    for    sublimity. 
We  have  then   the  blunders  that  such  a 
man  aslSpaulding  would  makein  writing  on 
such  a  theme.   His  prosy  dull  repetitions  and 
awkward  imitations  of  the  Bible,  that  made 
his  stuff  what  Mark  Twain  calls  it  "chloro- 
form in  type."    Then  the  ignorant  blunders 
ofsuclyan  illiterate  person  as  Rigdon  and 
his  rant,  fustian,  spread-eagle  and  bombast. 
The  blunders  that  an  ignoramus  like  Smith 
would  makein  reading  such  a  manuscript  to 
another,  and  the  blunders  that  an  illiterate 
blacksmith   like  Cowdery  would   make   in 
copying,  then  the  blunders  a  printer  would 
make  in  setting  up  such  unusual  stuff,  espe- 
cially when   he  dare  not  strike  out  what 
seemed  wrong  to  him,  as  he  might  mar  the 
inspiration  by  striking  out  its  cant  and  its 
brogue.     If  it  had  been  decent  English,  the 
printer  could  have  corrected  it.     But  it  \vaj 
like  Josh  Billings  spelling.    The  wit  in  Josh 
is  the  bad  spelling.  So  the  inspiration  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  was  its  butch-ering  of  the 
people's  English,    The  atrocities  of  speech 
were  the  divinity  that  was  in  it.  Still  one  is 
compelled  to  admit   that  with  all  of  these 
causes  of  error,  each  cause  of  error,  wrought 
a  stupendous   miracle,  to   have  gotten  up 
such  a   monstrosity   as   the   Book  of  Mor- 
mon.     We   have   proved    by   historic  evi- 
dence that  Rigdon  remodeled  Spaulding's 
manuscript,  interpolating  the  religious  Dor- 


tions  so  as  to  fit  it  to  be  used  as  a  pretended 
revelation.  We  have  proved  by  the  Rigdon- 
isms  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  that  it  is  his 
work.  His  belief  in  immersion,  believer's 
baptism,  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
free  grace,  opposition  to  infant  baptism, 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  total  heredi- 
tary depravity  that  borders  on  Pelagian- 
ism  These  were  the  ideas  of  the  Disci  |>les 
then.  His  opposition  to  secret  societies, 
denunciation  of  Sectarianism.  When  he 
agreed  with  the  Disciples  we  have  Disci 
pies  teaching,  but  when  he  differed,  their 
teaching  is  bitterly  opposed.  He  contends 
for  community  of  goods.  He  retained  the 
Baptist  idea  of  direct  and  miraculous  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  led  him  to  con- 
tend for  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bap- 
tism to  receive  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Imparting  spiritual  gifts  by  lay- 
ing on  of  hands.  Restoration  of  mira- 
cles, revelations  and  spiritual  powers  of 
the  Apostolic  church.  We  have  also  the 
fall  down  power  of  Rigdon's  revivals,  and 
that  he  was  subject  to  himself  When 
he  agreed  with  the  Disciples  the  Book  of 
Mormon  agrees  with  them.  WhttL  he  dif- 
fers from  them  it  differs  bitterly.  Take  for 
instance  his  bitter  denunciation  of  those 
who  say,  "We  have  the  Bible,  we  need  no 
new  revelation."  He  is  especially  bitter 
over  this,  and  his  book  is  full  of  instances 
of  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
such  as  he  contended  for.  We  have  his  pet 
expressions,  his  revivalisms,  his  baptismal 
formula,  his  rant  against  infant  baptism. 
The  child  is  not  more  clearly  the  offspring 
of  his  parent  than  the  religious  portion  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  is  the  workol  Sidney 
Rigdon. 

Rigdon  committed  an  absurd  blunder  in 
using  the  words  "baptize"  and  "immerse" 
as  he  did.  On  page 444  he  represents  Christ 
as  making  baptism  and  immersion  two  en- 
tirely different  things.  He  commands  men 
to  baptize,  and  tells  them  to  immerse  in 
doing  it.  Our  Savior  used  but  one  word, 
and  that  meant  to  immerse  and  that  alone. 
He  committed  another  absurd  blunder 
when  he  represented  immersion  as  univer- 
sal among  the  Nephites,  hundreds  of  years 
before  Christ.  Immersion  was  utterly  un- 
known as  a  religious  rite,  except  the  bath- 
ings of  the  law  of  Moses,  until  John  the 
Baptist.  He  made  the  blunder  still  more 
absurd  when  he  represented  the  Nephites 
as  immersing  in  the  name  of  Christ.  That 
was  never  done  until  it  was  done  by  the 
apostles  of  Christ.  He  magnified  his  blun- 
der still  farther  when  he  represented  them 
as  immersing  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
That  was  never  done  until  it  was  done  by 
John  the  Baptist.  He  capped  the  climax 
of  this  tissue  of  absurdities  when  he  rep- 
resented them  as  immersing  for  the  mirac- 
ulous gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  he  flatly 
contradicted  the  word  of  God.  He  coolly 
tells  us  that  these Nephites^had  all  spiritual 
gifts,  and  every  miraculous  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to  an  extent  utterly  unknown, 
even  to  the  apostles. 
John  vii.  38,  Jesus  said  "He  that  believeth 


162 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


on  me.  as  the  scriptures  have  said,  out  of 
him  shall  flow  rivers  of  water.  But  this 
he  spake  of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  be- 
lieved on  him  should  receive.  Fo'r  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  not  yet  given  because  Jesus  was 
not  glorified."  John  xv.  7,  "Nevertheless 
I  tell  you  the  truth,  it  is  best  for  you  that  I 
go  away.  For  if  I  go  not  away  the  com- 
forter will  not  come  urito  you,  but  if  I  go 
away,  I  will  send  him  unto  you."  Eph.  iv. 
When  Jesus  ascended,  then  he  gave  spirit- 
ual gifts  unto  men.  Had  Rigdon  been  there 
he  would  have  told  Jesus,  "Nevertheless 
"you  are  telling  a  falsehood.  The  Holy 
"  Spirit,  in  your  name,  has  been  enjoyed  by 
"my  Nephites  over  600  years,  and  to  an 
"  extent  that  no  human  being  ever  did  or 
"  ever  will  enjoy,  outside  of  my  Nephites." 

This  stuff"  of  Rigdon  contradicts  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible,  that  the  revelations  that 
constitute  the  sacred  scriptures  were  given 
in  Palestine  and  in  connection  with  the 
Israelites  in  Palestine.  Rigdon  has  a  higher 
and  far  better  dispensation,  over  in  Amer- 
ica, and  different  from  the  one  in  Palestine, 
for  the  priesthood  is  in  Manasseh,  not  in 
Levi,  and  the  scepter  is  in  Manasseh,  not 
in  Judah,  thus  abrogating  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation entirely. 

The  Nephites  had  the  gospel  so  fully  and 
completely  that  there  was  nothing  left  for 
Jesus  to  reveal;  nothing  for  him  to  do  but 
to  fill  the  programme  that  Nephite  prophets 
had  marked  out  for  him,  as  minutely,  word 
for  word,  act  for  act,  as  Shakspeare  has 
written  out  the  part  of  the  one  who  plays 
the  part  of  Hamlet. 

The  law  of  Moses  was  to  prepare  the  way 
for  the  teachings  of  Christ,  just  as  the  Ter- 
ritorial Government  prepares  the  way  for 
the  State  Government.  Rigdon  has  a  more 
perfect  State  Government  than  even  the 
apostles  instituted  in  full  blast  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  Territorial  is  abolished,  or 
the  Constitutional  Convention  held,  or  the 
State  organized. 

He  has  the  people  living  under  the  State 
Government  and  claiming  all  the  time  to  be 
living  under  the  Territorial'  Government, 
every  feature  of  which  they  are  trampling 
underfoot.  One  is  inclined  to  ask  Sydney 
"  why  did  not  God  give  prophets  and  reve- 
lations and  the  Gospel  to  the  Israelites  in 
Africa,  India,  or  China?"  There  were 
great  multitudes  of  them,  with  great 
schools,  in  all  of  these  places.  Why  was 
not  the  Gospel  revealed,  and  the  baptism 
in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  the  Holy  Spir  t 
and  all  spiritual  gifts,  in  Christ's  name, 
enjoyed  among  such  prophets,  as  Ezekiel, 
Daniel,  Malachi  in  Palestine  as  well  as 
among  your  Nephites  in  America?  Why 
did  not  Jesus  go  to  Spain,  India,  or  China, 
after  his  resurrection,  as  well  as  to  your 
Nephites?  This  lying  fabrication  of  Rig- 
don contradicts  Christ's  commission  to  his 
apostles.  The  Gospel  was  to  go  forth  to  the 
world  through  his  apostles,  and  through 
them  alone. 

They  were  to  go  to  all  nations,  give  the 
Gospel  to  every  creaiure.  It  contradicts 
the  claim  of  the  apostles,  "  To  us  is  commit- 


ted the  ministry  of  reconciliation.  We 
were  chosen  to  do  this  work."  It  con- 
tradicts Isaiah  and  Micah  ;  ''The  law  of 
Christ  was  to  go  forth  from  Zion,  his  word 
from  Jerusalem."  "The  gospel  was  to  be 
preached  among  all  nations,  beginning  at 
Jerusalem."  It  teaches  that  Manasseh 
took  the  priesthood  from  Levi,  before  the 
Messiah,  the  Melchesidec  priest,  and  the 
scepter  from  Judah,  before  Shiloh  came. 
The  rebellion  of  the  Ten  Tribes  was  a  sin. 
The  conduct  of  Rigdon's  Nephites  was 
rebellion,  apostasy,  and  yet  God  blessed 
them,  even  above  faithful  Judahites  and 
Levites. 

Rigdon,  in  the  case  of  his  Jaredites,  flatly 
contradicts  Gen.  xi.  9.  At  the  Tower  of 
Babel  the  Lord  confounded  the  language  of 
all  the  earth.  Sidney  declares  that  his 
Jaredites  were  top  smart  for  the  Lord  and 
ran  away  from  him,  and  the  Lord  did  not 
dp  what  he  thought  he  did  or  said  he  did. 
Sidney  pretends  that  his  Jaredites,  who 
came  to  America  250  years  before  A  braham, 
had  a  higher  and  more  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  Gospel  than  any  Israelite,  known  to 
the  Bible,  had  before  the  advent  ol  Christ, 
and  in  some  particulars  better  than  any 
have  ever  had,  except  his  Nephites.  Why 
did  not  Christ  make  his  ad  vent  among  these 
Jaredites  2,000  years  before  he  came  ?  They 
were  better  prepared  than  he  found  the 
Israelites  in  Palestine  when  ne  did  come. 
Why  did  he  not  make  his  advent  among 
the  Nephites,  hundreds  of  years  before  he 
came?  They  were  better  prepared  for  him, 
and  indeed  he  and  his  apostles  did  not  leave 
the  Israelites  and  Gentiles  on  the  old  conti- 
nent in  as  highly  favored  a  condition  as 
these  Nephites  were  hundreds  of  years  be- 
fore he  came.  Why  did  not  God  make 
Jared's  brother  the  father  of  the  faithful 
instead  of  Abraham  ? 

If  the  Book  of  Mormon  be  a  revelation 
Jared's  brother  so  far  excelled  Abraham 
hundreds  of  years  before  Abraham  lived 
that  he  is  the  real  father  of  the  faithful, 
and  Abraham  only  a  pretender.  He  was 
favored  above  all  Israelite  prophets  except 
Sidney's  fictitious  Nephites.  The  apostles 
were  not  so  highly  favored  and  all  to  no 
purpose  for  he  was  to  seal  it  up.  The  time 
that  the  Lord  said  they  were  to  go  forth  is 
not  yet  come.  After  all  the  work  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  the  world  is  not  yet  ready 
for  the  revelations  that  God  gave  to  Jared's 
brother  long  before  Abraham's  day.  If  the 
Nephites  had  our  Bible,  or  as  much  of  it  as 
was  in  existence  before  they  left  Jerusalem, 
why  was  not  it  buried  instead  of  Moroni's 
plates?  Why  do  not  we  have  an  abridg- 
ment of  it  on  the  plates  as  well  as  what  is 
given  on  them?  If  it  is  because  they  had 
the  Bible,  then  why  did  the  book  of  Mor- 
mon steal  so  much  from  the  Bible?  We 
have  neither  the  historical  part  of  the  Bible 
nor  an  abridgment  of  it  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
moii,  but  the  religious  portions  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  are  stolen  from  the  Bible  and 
mixed  with  Rigdon's  notions.  If  we  need 
the  Book  of  Mormon  in  addition  to  our 
Bible,  it  must  be  because  it  contains  addi- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


163 


tional  truth.  What  single  new  idea,  what 
single  better  expression  of  a  biblical  idea 
have  we  in  the  Book  of  Mormon? 

We  are  told  on  pages  505-506  that  Jared's 
brother  (I  wonder  if  that  fellow  really  had 
no  name,  if  he  was  always  anonymous?) 
said  that  Christ  was  literal  flesh  and  blood, 
that  Jesus  showed  himself  to  him  as  he  did 
to  the  Nephites,  after  his  resurrection,  with 
his  body  of  flesh,  bones  nnd  blood.  This 
flatly  contradicts  the  positive  declarations 
of  the  Bible,  that  he  first  tabernacled  in 
flesh,  became  incarnate,  in  the  person  of 
Mary.  That  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  That  his  human  nature  was  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham,  was  a  lineal  descends 
ant  of  Abraham.  That  his  body  was  pre- 
pared for  him  when  he  came  to  do  God's 


will,  or  in  the  person  of  Mary.  Here  we 
are  told  that  he  showed  that  body  to  this 
anonymous  fellow  of  Sidney  Rigdon's  cre- 
ation, hundreds  of  years  before  Abraham 
or  any  of  his  seed  existed,  and  thousands  of 
years  before  he  became  incarnate,  according 
to  the  Bible.  We  are  further  told  that 
man's  body  is  an  exact  image  or  copy  of 
God's  body.  Then  God  has  a  literal  body 
of  literal  flesh,  blood  and  bones,  notwith- 
standing Jesus  says  "  God  is  a  Spirit,"  and 
"  spirit  has  not  flesh  and  bones."  Of  course, 
then,  God  has  organs  of  eating,  digesting, 
evacuation,  procreation,  and  uses  tnem,  or 
he  eats,  digests,  evacuates  and  procreates 
like  man,  and  Priapus  Young's  Adam-God 
theory  is  true  according  to  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 


MR.  KELLEY'S    SIXTEENTH    SPEECH! 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — I  will  first  call  your  atten- 
tion to  one  or  two  things  that  have  been 
mentioned,  as  objections,  and  then  go  on 
with  my  argument. 

1.  That  it  is  not  probable  that  any  per- 
sons could  have  been  led  to  this  continent 
as  claimed  at  the  time  of  the  confusion  of 
languages  without  the  same  being  known 
to  the  people  of  the  old  world.  Gen.  11:  8 
states:  "So  the  Lord  scattered  them 
abroad  from  thence  upon  the  face  of  all  the 
earth:  and  they  left  ofF  to  build  the  city. 
Therefore  is  the  name  of  it  called  Babel ;  be- 
cause the  Lord  did  there  confound  the  lan- 
guage of  all  the  earth ;  and  from  thence  did 
the  Lord  scatter  them  abroad  upon  the  face 
of  all  the  earth."  It  seems  to  me  that  they 
did  know  it  on  the  old  world. 

Josephus  says,  that  they  were  scattered 
abroad  upon  all  the  earth,  and  that  some 
of  them  "went  over  the  sea."  The  Book  of 
Mormon  tells  about  a  colony  that  came  out 
from  there  composed  of  a  few  families,  and 
Mr.  Braden  thinks  it  could  never  have  hap- 
pened. In  fact,  however,  it  is  improbable 
to  the  Bible-believer  that  God  should  not 
have  taken  steps  to  the  colonization  of  all 
the  earth,  since  he  had  created  man  for  the 
purpose  of  dwelling  thereon.  It  is  said, 
here  that  the  language  of  all  the  earth  was 
confounded,  and  Mr.  Braden  objects  again, 
for  the  reason  that  the  Book  of  Mormon 
states  that  there  was  a  family  who  were 
permitted  to  retain  their  speech  so  that  they 
could  understand  each  other.  The  history 
of  it  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  as  follows: 
That  at  the  time  of  the  confounding  of  the 
language  of  all  the  earth,  the  brother  of 
Jared  went  and  asked  that  the  Lord  would 


remember  him  in  his  mercy,  and  that  He 
would  permit  that  these  brothers  and  their 
families  might  understand  each  other  ;  and 
he  prayed,  and  the  Lord  granted  his  prayer 
as  to  himself  and  Jared  and  a  few  others. 
Now,  is  it  in  fact  unreasonable,  or  does  it 
contradict  the  Bible  in  any  particular? 
The  language  was  confounded  so  that  the 
people  could  not  work  together  to  build  th» 
tower  there — and  that  they  should  go 
abroad  and  inhabit  the  whole  earth.  That 
was  the  object  of  it.  And  a  few  were  per- 
mitted, and  we  don't  know  but  what  doz- 
ens of  families,  or  hundreds  even,  were  per- 
mitted in  the  same  way  to  understand  one 
another  of  which  we  have  no  record.  But 
he  objects  because  the  family,  first  of  Jared 
and  then  of  Jared's  brotiier,  or  the  broth- 
er of  Jared  and  then  Jared  himself,  were 
permitted  to  first  converse  about  this  and 
understand  each  other.  Mr.  Braden  makes 
his  mistake  in  supposing  that  the  work  of 
confounding  the  language  was  all  of  a  sud- 
den, a  thing  similar  to  a  stroke  of  light- 
ning. There  is  no  sense  in  supposing  that 
in  this  God  did  not  work  like  himself,  and 
use  some  proper  means  to  perform  this  work 
and  warn  too,  the  people. 

Again,  he  says  that  the  Jaredites  ran 
away  from  the  Lord  so  he  could  not  con- 
found their  language.  But  where  did  he 
get  it?  When  a  man  says  a  thing  he  ought 
to  have  some  foundation  for  it.  The  Book 
of  Mormon  states  that  the  Lord  led  them 
away.  He  did  not  get  it  out  of  that  Book. 
Where  did  he  get  it?  Where  did  you  get 
the  statement  that  Jared  ran  away  so  the 
Lord  could  not  do  it?  The  Book  of  Mormon 
does  not  say  either  that  the  Lord  could  not 
do  it,  but  on  the  contrary  that  the  Lord 


164 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


cnuld  dolt,  but  that  he  had  compassion  and 
pity  on  these  parties  because  they  cried  un- 
to him.  Do  you  understand  that  God  is  not 
such  a  being  that  he  will  answer  when  peo- 
ple cry  unto  him  ? 

But,  he  objects  again  that  Jesus  did  not 
come  to  this  continent,  because  if  he  did  why 
did  he  not  go  to  Spain  and  other  places  also. 
How  does  he  know  but  what  he  did?  It 
may  be  that  he  did.  Heappeared,  says  Paul, 
to  five  hundred  brethren  at  one  time  after 
his  resurrection,  and  doubtless  to  many 
that  we  did  not  have  any  account  of  on  the 
Kastein  Continent.  And  how  does  he  know 
but  what  he  went  to  Spain  and  China  and 
the  islands  of  the  sea  ?  If  it  is  an  argument 
in  his  favor  to  interrogate  upon  something 
lie  knows  nothing  about,  it  is  an  argument 
in  mine.  That  is  the  logic  of  it. 

'2.  Then  he  gives  to  us  a  reminiscence  of 
Sidney  Rigdou's  bitter  denunciation,  as  lie 
says,  of  those  who  clung  to  the  Bible  while 
he  was  a  Campbellite  preacher.  What  has 
that  or  anything  else  Rigdon  did  while  a 
Campbellite  to  do  with  the  question  under 
discussion?  Do  you  believe  that  while  he 
\vas  a  Campbellite,  preaching  here  in  North- 
ern Ohio,  and  converting  so  many  upon  the 
"Western  Reserve,  nay  Campbellite  friends, 
that  he  was  denouncing  those  who  claimed 
to  believe  in  the  Bible?  Was  that  his  man- 
ner? Mr.  Braden  says  it  was.  Yet  you 
kept  him  for  your  preacher  and  he  was  the 
ablest  p-eaclier  you  had.  He  made  more 
converts  than  any  other  two  preachers  on 
the  Western  Reserve.  This  is  shown  in 
your  own  history.  And  still  Braden  asserts 
this  man  was  denouncing  everything  that 
was  good  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  mak- 
ing these  converts.  Is  that  the  way  to  make 
converts  to  the  Campbellite  faith?  If  not, 
where  is  the  sense  in  such  statements,  my 
friends? 

3.  Again,  he  objects  to  the  Book  of  Mormon 
because  somebody  prophecied  he  should  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
or  through  Christ.    I  would  like  for  him  to 
tell  this  audience  two  things. 

1.  In  what  way  did  the  people  of  olden 
time  receive  the  Holy  Spirit?     How   did 
Elijah  and  Malachi,  or  any  of  the  proph- 
ets?   I  asked  him  the  question  upon  a  for- 
mer evening.    Let  him  answer  that  ques- 
tion. 

2.  Turn  to  the  Rook  of  Mormon  and  show 
where  they  claimed  to  have  received  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  Christ,  or  in  a  different 
manner  over  here   than  is   represented  in 
the  Bible.    There  is  not  an  instance  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  where  it  teaches  the  receiv- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  a  different  sense  to 
the  Bible.    This  is  all  Braden's  imagina- 
tion.   Do  not  misrepresent  the  book  to  the 
audience.    Note  his  answers  to  these,  will 
you  please? 

4.  Another  thing.  He  says  that  my  testi- 
mony of  the  three  witnesses  to  the  Book  of 
Mormon  is  precisely  like  his,  because  I  refer- 
red tothe  fact  that  Mr.  Howe's  purported 
statements  from  John  Spauldingand  Martha 
Spaulding  had  no   time,  place,  or   date,  nor 
were  they  original  testimony  ;  that  is,  that 


they  were  quoted  from  something  else  and 
not  genuine.  Now  if  you  will  turn  to  the  back 
part  of  Mr.  Howe's  book,  you  will  find,  in- 
stead of  giving  the  statement  itself,  he  gives 
a  quotation  from  a  statement.  That  is  not 
like  the  testimony  I  offered.  When  I  turn 
to  the  testimony  of  the  three  witnesses,  my 
criticism,  he  says,  "is  the  club  that  knocks 
me  in  the  head."  But  the  testimony  of  the 
three  witnesses  which  I  read  is  their  state- 
ment, not  a  quotation  from  the  statement 
of  the  witnesses.  There  is  no  pretention  to 
a  quotation  here,  but  the  witnesses  send  it 
forth  themselves  as  their  testimony.  "Be 
it  known  unto  all  nations,  kindreds,  tongues 
and  people."  This  is  our  testimony.  Can 
you  find  anything  like  that  in  Howe's  quo- 
ta! ion  from  the  purported  statements  of 
John  Spaulding  and"  Martha  Spaulding? 
The  cases  are  not  parallel  in  any  sense. 
There  is  not  nor  never  has  been  a  question 
or  reason  to  suppose  that  the  statement  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon  was  not  that  of  the 
three  witnesses.  All  three  of  the  witnesses 
have  voluntarily  since  confirmed  this  fact ; 
I  have  read  you  some  of  these  later  state- 
ments of  them.  While  the  others  (these 
quotations  found  in  Howe's  book),  are  ques- 
tioned, and  they  show  doubt  upon  the  face 
of  them.  Those  of  the  three  witnesses  he 
thinks  were  written  up  by  Joseph  Smith. 
Will  some  of  you  take  the  trouble  and  ex- 
amine them,  and  then  tell  me  if  a  man  who 
could  write  those  statements  up  could  be 
justly  called  an  "ignoramus,"  if  you  please, 
that  he  has  been  calling  Joseph  Smith.  Mr. 
Braden  has  used  that  language  of  Joseph 
Smith  from  the  first.  Again,  he  tells  us 
that  Joseph  the  third  says  thatErnma  says, 
and  all  of  this.  Ah!  yes  ;  but  all  there  is 
to  it,  Joseph  Smith  wrote  his  mother's  tes- 
timony down  as  she  gave  it.  Now  his  evi- 
dence, so  far  as  being  direct  and  explicit, 
don't  compare  with  this  at  all.  So,  also, 
of  David  Whitmer's  evidence:  it  is  upon 
record,  and  we  quote  from  his  evidence  as 
given  by  himself,  published  by  himself 
over  his  own  signature.  Braden's  state- 
ments are  objected  to  because  they  are  not 
given  by  the  parties  directly.  But,  he  says, 
Mr.  Bonsall  says,  that  somebody  else  told 
him  so;  and  they  thought  Dr.  Winters 
put  it  in  writing,  and  they  did  not  have 
the  original  statement.  Mrs.  Dunlap  Rig- 
don's  niece,  who  was  a  member  of  Bradeu's 
church,  is  said  to  have  said,  &c.  That  is 
what  I  object  to  sir ;  and  if  you  can  pro- 
duce the  original  statements  of  these  par- 
ties or  a  reliable  publication  of  them,  do  so, 
and  then  the  argument  upon  that  point  will 
cease.  But  I  deny  that  you  have  any  evi- 
dence from  Dr.  Winters,  Abel  Chase,  John 
Spaulding,  &c.  Bring  on  your  evidence  and 
I  will  examine  it,  if  you  have  any.  Patter- 
son and  Howe  won't  do  to  put  up  evidence 
for  me. 

5.  Next  I  notice  that  he  has  raised  the  old 
objection  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  contains 
in  it  the  idioms  which  peculiarly  belong  to 
the  translation  of  the  Bible.  That  is  a  valid 
objection,  if  true  to  any  extent,  and  now 
will  he  dare  examine  it  candidly  with  me. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


165 


I  say  it  is  not  true  and  ask  him  to  cite 
instances  which  he  is  willing  to  rest  his  ar- 
gument upon.  If  I  do  not  answer  objections 
of  that  nature  before  the  conclusion  of  the 
discussion,  there  will  be  one  point  against 
roe.  It  is  a  valid  objection  if  the  idioms  or 
•words  peculiar  to  the  translation  of  the 
Bible  have  been  copied  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon from  the  Bible  in  a  reckless,  blundering 
way,  as  he  says,  and  it  is  an  objection  that 
I  will  meet  on  to-morrow  evening,  and  I 
want  you  all  here  to  hear  it,  too.  At  this 
time  I  will  proceed  with  my  main  argument. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  states  that  the  last 
civilization  which  came  to  this  continent 
landed  here  about  590  years  before  the  time 
of  Christ,  and  existed  in  a  civilized  state 
here  till  the  close  of  the  fourth  century; 
giving  specific  statements  of  dates,  places 
and  conditions  which  are  quite  sufficient  by 
reason  of  their  completeness,  to  either  con- 
demn or  corroborate  the  narrative  in  the 
subsequent  developmentof  the  relics,  ruins, 
etc.,  of  that  ancient  people,  through  the 
independent  line  of  evidence  brought  for- 
ward by  archseologists.  This  was  in  1827 
to  1830;  the  developments  have  been  made 
since. 

Do  they  contradict  or  confirm  this  state- 
ment bofdly  and  fearlessly  made?  I  refer 
you  to  the  latest  accounts  given  of  the  dis- 
coveries in  this  direction.  S.  B.  Evans,  of 
Ottumwa,  Iowa,  published  through  the 
Chicago  Times,  1881,  his  explorations,  con- 
clusions, etc.,  from  travels  on  the  continent 
and  examinations  of  works,  and  from  these 
concludes  that  there  have  been  at  least  two 
civilizations  that  have  lived  and  dwindled 
away  on  the  continent  prior  to  the  Aztecs 
or  Toltecs,  of  Mexico;  the  last  of -which 
must  have  ceased  to  exist  at  least  from  a 
thousand  to  fifteen  hundred  years  ago, 
«,nd  occupied  the  time  of  at  least  one 
thousand  years  of  civilization  here.  Take 
his  time  and  conclusions  and  compare  with 
the  positive  declaration  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
nion  made  over  fifty  years  before  without 
the  aid  of  these  examinations  and  the 
published  accounts  of  researches  and  dis- 
coveries now  attainable,  and  you  must 
begin  to  fnel  that  its  work  was  not  that  of 
the  guesser.  The  civilization  must  have 
ceased  to  exist  according  to  the  best  scien- 
tific theories  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  of 
'the  Christian  era.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
says  400  years  after  Christ.  A  thousand 
years  back  from  the  fourth  or  fifth  century, 
again  gives  about  the  time  that  Lehi  left 
Jerusalem  according  to  the  record.  If  Mr. 
Smith  was  guessing,  did  he  not  guess  well? 
Do  you  still  believe  he  was  guessing? 

Oh  !  but  Braden  says  he  did  not  write  in 
a  perfect  language,  and  before  he  will 
receive  anything  as  of  divine  origin  it  must 
be  in  a  perfect  language.  He  asks  me  to 
state  whether  Peter  or  Paul,  or  any  of  the 
prophets  wrote  in  an  imperfect  language. 
My  answer  to  this  is,  that,  there  is  not  a 
scrap  of  gospel  manuscript  under  the  sun 
within  two  hundred  years  of  Peter  or 
Paul.  Mr.  Braden  nor  no  other  man  can 
tell  whether  they  wrote  in  pure  Greek,  or 


pure  Hebrew,  or  in  the  Syrian,  or  the 
Syrio-Chaldaic  or  what  they  wrote  in.  He 
does  not  even  know  what  particular  lan- 
guage they  did  write  in,  imperfect  as  it 
must  have  been  ;  and  it  is  in  dispute  at  the 
present  time  as  to  the  particular  languagt> 
Jesus  himself  used  when  he  was  here.  And 
yet,  I  am  asked  to  furnish  something  in 
the  exact  original  writing  of  Peter,  Paul, 
or  John,  so  as  to  prove  to  Braden  that 
what  they  wrote  was  not  perfect  grammer. 
Let  us  examine  this  silly  nonsense  a  mo- 
ment. It  is  the  old  objection  of  Howe, 
and  Hyde,  and  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected without  any  foundation.  What 
language  known  toman  is  perfect?  Will 
he  tell  this  audience  what  language  known 
to  man  now,  or  that  has  ever  been  known 
or  in  use  since  the  time  of  Enoch  that  was 
perfect?  Can  any  of  you  think  of  one? 
Mr.  Braden  can  you?  Don't  you  know 
there  has  never  been  such  since  Babel's 
time  at  least.  So  that  if  you  require  a 
perfect  language,  God  could  never  have 
spoken  to  the -world. 

We  will  take  the  English  language,  as 
that  is  the  one  more  nearly  connected  with 
the  question  under  consideration.  Three 
hundred  years  ago  what  would  have  b'een 
considered  good  English  is  not  now — the 
language  is  continually  changing.  The 
great  Shakespeare,  the  master,  says  "I  had 
rather,"  while  our  school  ma'ams  turn  up 
their  noses  at  it  now,  and  correct  the  little 
one  to  say  "  I  would  rather."  I  could  give 
you  many  such  instances  from  such  writers 
as  Spencer,  Cowper,  etc.,  could  I  take  the 
time  here,  showing  great  changes  day  by 
day  and  year  by  year  of  the  English  lan- 
guage. Pope  tells  us  that  the  language 
changes  as  do  the  fashions.  This  of  itself 
ought  to  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  objec- 
tion that  it  is  not  in  good  English.  The 
American  Bible  Society,  I  understand, 
claims  23,000  inaccuracies  so  far  as  minor 
points  of  language,  use  and  construction  are 
concerned,  found  in  King  James'  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  and  yet  at  the  time  of  the 
translation  it  was  put  into  English  by  the 
masters  of  literature — the  best  scholars  of 
the  realm.  Only  last  night  we  were  saluted 
with  the  remark,  "  Suppose  Joe  Smith  had 
as  good  a  right  to  make  a  word  as  Web- 
ster." Certainly  he  had.  According  to 
the  history  of  the  English  language,  Mr. 
Smith  or  any  one  in  this  audience  hasijust 
as  good  a  right  to  make  a  word  as  Webstei 
er  any  other  man  ;  and  I  can  cite  hundreds 
of  instances  of  words  that  have  been  manu- 
factured, not  by  the  scholarly  of  the  age, 
but  by  men  that  were  in  indifferent  cir- 
cumstances in  life.  Don't  you  remember 
that  a  few  years  ago,  only  in  1840,  I  believe 
it  was,  in  a  great  political  convention  held 
at  the  time  that  Henry  Clay  was  a  candi- 
date for  the  Presidency,  a  gentleman  in  the 
convention  from  Tennessee  —  a  common 
farmer  too — who  got  tired  of  the  noise  and 
rattle  in  the  convention,  said  that  he  be- 
lieved that  they  ought  not  to  tolerate  the 
"outsiders"  in  there  any  longer;  and  from 
that  very  time  the  word  "outsider"  was 


\66 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


coined  into  the  English  language,  and  we 
now  use  it,  and  it  is  admitted  to  be  a  proper 
word — coined  by  a  man  that  was  among 
those  not  scholarly,  as  he  thinks  was  the 
position  of  Joseph  Smith.  I  could  tell  you 
of  a  hundred  such  cases,  and  taken  right 
from  the  works  upon  the  English  language. 
If  he  is  acquainted  with  the  literature  of 
the  English  language  he  knows  the  state- 
ment to  be  entirely  correct. 

But  the  objection  is  further  urged  that 
the  Book  of  Mormon  was  translated  by  in- 
spiration and  should  have  been  in  a  perfect 
language.  Think  a  moment!  For  God  to 
look  ahead  and  use  language  In  advance  of 
the  times  would  make  it  incomprehensible 
to  the  persons  to  whom  it  was  given,  and 
too,  imperfect  when  compared  with  their 
language  as  a  standard,  no  difference  how 
much  better  in  fact  it  might  have  been. 
This  is  the  logic  he  offers.  God  must  talk 
in  perfect  language  when  he  speaks,  al- 
though he  speaks  through  men.  Perfection 
so  far  as  our  language  is  concerned  is  deter- 
mined by  the  usage  of  the  times.  The  usage 
changes,  hence  perfection  changes. 

Therefore,  if  God  speaks,  he  must  so 
speak,  that  it  will  be  good  English  to-day, 
according  to  the  language,  and  good  Eng- 
lish next  year,  according  to  the  standard, 
although  the  standard  has  changed.  The 
lallacy  of  the  position  must  be  apparent  to 
all.  We  must  conclude  that  the  language  is 
but  the  medium  through  which  the  thought 
is  convened,  and  the  Lord  uses  the  medium 
w'0lrSveT  The  question  is  not  one  of  perfect 
language  or  imperfect  language.  No  claim 
is  made  to  giving  a  perfect  language  to  the 
world.  The  only  sensible  criticism  to  be 
made  as  to  the  language  used  in  the  book  is 
from  the  standpoint  of  whether  it  is  in  such 
language  as  all  people  may  understand  it, 
who  are  conversant  with  the  language  in 
which  it  is  given;  for  the  message  claims 
to  be  sent  to  all.  Has  he  made  the  objec- 
tion that  it  is  in  such  language  that  all 
may  not  understand  it?  Everyone;  whether 
high  or  low,  rich  or  poor,  the  educated  or 
the  uneducated?  Oh,  no.  His  objection  is, 
that  it  is  not  in  the  vocabulary  of  we 
giants  in  the  world  of  language  and  litera- 
ture. If  he  will  turn  to  I  Cor.  1 : 26,  he 
find  that  "Not  nia.,y  wise  men  after  the 
flvsh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble 
are  called.  But  God  hath  chosen  the  fool- 
ish -things  of  this  world  to  confound  the 
wise,  and  the  weak  things  to  confound  the 
things  which  are  mighty  ;  and  base  things 
3f  the  world,  and  things  which  are 
drspixed,  hath  God  chosen,  yea,  and  things 
which  are  not  to  bring  to  riaught  things 
that  are."  God's  ways  are  not  Braden's 
ways.  That  is  clear.  Braden's  view  is. 
just  to  think  of  the  grand,  good,  and 
noble  characters  of  the  last  three  hundred 
years ;  of  Calvin,  Luther,  Wesley,  Camp- 
bell, etc.  And  then,  think  of  the  Lord 
choosing  as  an  instrument  the  likes  of 
Joseph  Smith.  No;  the  Lord  says,  "not 
many  noble,"  after  the  ways  of  the  world  ; 
but  Braden's  Idea  is,  let  us  have  what  we 
cat/  noble. 


The  untutored  Galileans  and  poor  fisher- 
men of  Judea  stand  a  poor  show  with  the 
great  "Scalper  of  Robert  Ingersol."  But 
I  will  continue  farther  to  notice  the  criti- 
cism. Is  this  an  objection  in  fact,  or  is  it 
only  an  imaginary  one?  Will  not  the  im- 
perfections of  an  original  language  in  a 
strictly  literal  and  true  translation  appear 
in  the  translation.  If  you  take  the  writ- 
ings of  Xenophon,  or  of  any  of  the  great 
Greek  scholars,  or  the  speeches  of  Cicero  in 
the  Latin,  ana  put  them  in  the  English 
language,  will  they  not  read  differently 
from  the  speeches  and  writings  of  the  ur 
learned  made  in  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  language  in  which  those  scholars 
lived  and  wrote !  They  will  read  differently, 
although  they  have  been  correctly  trans- 
lated into  the  English  language,  And  so 
it  would  be,  too,  if  the  original  writers  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  did  not  have  a  perfect 
language,  or  did  not  speak  or  write  cor- 
rectly ;  the  imperfection  would  crop  out 
when  it  was  put  into  the  English  language  ; 
nor  would  it  be  in  the  fine  literature  that  it 
might  have  appeared  in,  had  they  been 
scholarly  men,  which  they  say  themselves 
they  were  not,  as  I  have  before  shown  you 
from  the  book  wherein  one  of  them  states 
they  were  not  mighty  or  efficient  ;iu 
writing  even  as  in  speaking.  In  their 
writings  then  we  might  expect  to  find 
many  imperfections.  If  so,  it  would  crop 
out,  and  the  unskillful  work  and  style  be 
reflected  in  the  translation  into  English, 
as  it  would  if  made  from  the  Hebrew,  the 
Greek,  or  the  Latin.  It  is  not  difficult  even 
for  a  novice  to  detect  these  interjected 
anachronisms  in  language  in  many  authors. 
Let  us  examine  the  strength  of  the  argu- 
ment from  the  other  standpoint:  Suppose 
the  Book  of  Mormon  was  in  fact  in  the 
smooth  and  finished  speech  of  a  graduate 
of  Dartmouth  college,  as  is  claimed  for  Mr. 
Solomon  Spaulding,  and  then  you  should 
find  the  expression  therein,  that  the  origi- 
nal language  in  which  tne  book  was  written , 
was  a  very  imperfect  one,  as  is  the  admis- 
sion in  the  Book  of  Mormon  ;  would  not  my 
opponent  say  at  once  that  it  was  an  irrecon- 
cilable inconsistency?  And  would  he  not 
have  a  more  reasonable  basis  upon  which 
to  make  the  claim  that  the.  book  was  the 
work  of  the  cultured  clergyman  of  New 
England?  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it. - 
Every  position  Mr.  Braden  takes  against 
this  book  on  account  of  its  unenticing 
style,  language,  address,  and  compilation, 
exposes  more  fully  the  utter  unreasonable- 
ness and  absurdity  of  his  Spauldiug  tale, 
"old  come 'to  pass,"  and  all. 

But  I  will  examine  the  work  of  some  New 
Testament  writers: — Mark  was  as  much 
inspired  as  Matthew,  but  his  language  of 
recording  the  gospel  is  quite  different. 
Luke's  style  and  language  is  not  that  of 
John,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  untaught 
Peter  is  such  a  character  from  his  inspired 
Epistles;  while  Paul's  characteristics  of 
culture  shine  out  in  his.  But  Braden  thinks 
that,  if  the  Lord  should  use  Joseph  Smith 
and  inspire  his  mind  to  use  the  means  he 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


167 


had  prepared  to  translate  a  language,  he 
must  not  use  the  vocabulary  of  Joseph 
Smith. 

The  Lord,  in  translating  the  book  through 
Joseph  Smith,  would  certainly  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Joseph  Smith  so  far  as  that  vocab- 
ulary would  reflect  truthfully  the  original. 
If  it  was  deficient,  then  of  course  it  must 
have  been  supplied,  but  not  otherwise. 
"What  vocabulary  would  he  use?  Of  some 
learned  gentleman  who  was  president  of 
Harvard  or  Dartmouth?  Why,  how  would 
Joseph  Smith  understand  it  after  he  had 
translated,  according  to  that?  And  then 
Satan  would  find  some  argument  for  his 
Spaulding  story.  Was  not  the  message  to 
Mr.  Smith  as  well  as  to  the  others  of  the 
human  family,  and  could  he  understand  it 
if  not,  in  great  part,  in  his  vocabulary? 
Was  it  not  also  most  proper  that  he  first  of 
all  understand  this  message?  All  must 
answer  these  questions  the  same.  Then 
why  object  to  the  work  upon  this  ground? 
It  is  but  reasonable  to  expect  that  we  should 
find  in  the  translation  the  language  in  great 
part  in  use  and  understood  by  the  translator 
at  the  time  of  the  translation.  I  might 
refer  also  to  the  fact  that  there  are  hundreds 
of  works  written  in  the  English  language 
that  were  correct  according  to  the  best 
usage  at  the  time  in  which  they  were  writ- 
ten, but  which  are  poor  English  to-day; 
and  not  only  this,  but  the  very  vocabulary 
of  those  works  is  altogether  unlike  the  vo- 
cabulary of  other  works  that  were  in  good 
English,  written  at  the  same  time.  Need  I 
cite  you  to  the  common  work  that  is  known 
all  over  Christendom,  published  in  England 
a  few  years  ago,  known  as  Bunyan's  Pil- 
grim's Progress ;  thought  to  be  a  model 
yet,  in  many  things,  of  good  English,  for 
the  reason  that  the  words  that  are  used  in 
it  are  so  simple  that  everybody  can  under- 
stand it ;  but  because  of  this  does  it  follow 
that  other  works  written  at  the  same  time, 
but  in  a  widely  different  vocabulary,  were 
not  in  proper  form  and  style  also?  Mr. 
Braden's  reasoning  is  like  this :  Joseph 
Smith  was  an  unlearned  boy,  with  a  limited 
vocabulary  of  words,  as  the  vocabulary  of 
all  unlearned  persons  is  of  few  words  when 
compared  with  the  scholarly.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  is  in  the  language  of  such  an  un- 
learned and  illiterate  boy ;  Sidney  Iligdon 
and  Solomon  Spaulding  were  educated, 
able  and  well-informed  men,  and  ministers 
— one  a  Presbyterian  and  graduate  of  Dart- 
mouth College,  the  other  belonging  to  the 
church  of  which  "  I,  Clark  Brad  en,  am  a 
member," — orator  of  the  great  Mahoning 
Association,  a  city  pastor,  etc.,  their  vocab- 
ulary of  the  English  language  was  of  the 
best  at  the  time,  rich,  and  especially  Spaul- 
ding's,  who  was 'classical  and  scholarly. 
Therefore  the  learned  and  scholarly  Spaul- 
ding wrote  the  Book  of  Mormon,  in  common 
phrase  language,  and  the  eloquent  and 
gifted  Sidney  (Bro.  Braden's  pastor)  stole 
it  and  gave  it  to  Joseph  Smith,  an  un- 
learned, illiterate,  low,  mean,  drinking, 
shiftless,  lazy,  thieving,  rascally  boy,  who 
lived  hundreds  of  miles  away,  in  the  forests 


of  the  State  of  New  York,  at  the  time  when 
they  had  no  news,  lines,  railroads,  or  easy 
conveyancing  as  now,  and  when  from  the 
very  surroundings  of  the  case  it  was  impos- 
sible that  Rigdou  could,  from  his  station  in 
life,  ever  have  noticed  that  there  was  such 
a  boy  living  in  the  world  so  far  as  having 
anything  to  do  with  him  was  concerned. 
How  do  you  like  it?  Sidney  Rigdon,  so  far 
as  the  use  of  language  is  concerned,  was 
one  of  the  most  eloquent  men  that  this  na- 
tion has  ever  produced.  I  can  read  you 
passages  from  his  speeches,  his  sermons, 
and  from  his  presentation  of  the  case  of  this 
people  before  Congress  and  the  world,  tbat 
equal  anything  that  I  have  ever  seen  in  tne 
writings'or  addresses  of  Calhoun,  Webster 
or  Clay.  And  yet  persons  will  try  to  make 
out,  in  order  to  if  possible  connect  him  with 
the  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  that 
he  was  such  a  poor,  illiterate  "ignoramus" 
of  a  fellow  that  he  did  not  know  anything. 
His  language  was  all  of  this  clap-tiap 
"nonsense,"  of  unusual  "verbosity,"  and 
abounding  in  "vulgarisms,"  and  such  as 
that.  Well,  now,  it  is  not  true.  All  of  you 
who  have  heard  Sidney  Kigdon,  and  theie 
are  many  in  this  audience,  know  it  is  not 
true.  You  know  that  he  was  a  man  who 
could  talk,  and  talk  eloquently  ;  talk  in 
one-half  hour  more  than  Braden,  or-I  either, 
can  talk  in  two  days,  so  far  as  the  use  of 
fine  and  eloquent  language  is  concerned. 
That  is  the  kind  of  man  he  was  and  what 
he  could  do.  And  yet  Mr.  Braden  will  have 
it  that  these  two  ministers,  Sidney  Rigdon 
and  Solomon  Spaulding,  made  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  It  seems  to  me  that  his  argu- 
ments will  not  tally  at  all  when  you  begin 
to  examine  and  weigh  them.  Paul  says, 
"And  I  came  not  with  excellency  of  speech," 
and  yet  he  was  inspired  of  the  Lord,  and  so 
may'be  the  case  of  Joseph  Smith. 

My  friends,  can  you  not  all  now  see  that 
such  objections  are  really  frivolous,  and 
that  the  work  must  be  tested  upon  its  mer- 
its; of  what  it  is;  of  its  teachings,  its 
doctrines,  its  principles,  and  not  upon 
the  false  objections  that  have  been  rais- 
ed. "He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and 
he  Son."  Not  if  their  message  is  in  good 
language  "with  excellency  of  speech,"  pure 
Greek,  Hebrew  or  English ;  but  is  it 
so  as  to  be  understood,  and  when  un- 
derstood is  it  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
Christ.  Can  you  see  the  point  ?  I  think 
my  audience  can. 

But  all  the  good  there  is  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  is  borrowed  from  the  Bible  he  says. 
Does  that  make  it  bad  because  it  is  borrow- 
ed from  the  Bible?  Why  don't  he  point 
out  the  bad  to  this  audience  and  show 
where  that  came  from?  That  is  what  you 
are  waiting  for  him  to  do.  Does  he  sup- 
pose you  will  go  home  and  begin  to  kick 
the  Book  of  Mormon  if  he  leaves  it  like  the 
Bible?  Would  it  not  be  entitled  to  the  re- 
spect and  belief  of  Christians,  if  it  did  come 
out  of  the  Bible?  Jesus  said  "every  good 
and  perfect  thing  came  from  God." 

But  again,  the  claim  is  made  that  the  er- 


168 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


rors  of  King  James'  translation  were  copied 
In  the  Book  of  Mormon  when  it  was  trans- 
lated. Now  this  I  deny.  It  is  an  assertion  that 
cannot  be  made  good.  If  they  are  let  him 
rpa.'f  the  passages  to  this  audience  and  give 
me  page  and  paragraph  ami  prove  it.  That 
is  the  way  to  debate.  Select  a  few  he  can 
stand  by  and  let  us  have  an  issue.  What 
is  argument?  For  the  negative  to  copy  out 
all  day  what  he  finds  in  thos^  works  writ- 
ten against  the  people  he  has  assailed, 
without  regard  to  the  question,  or  what 
the  affirmative  has  produced,  and  then  to 
stand  and  read  it  off  at  night?  If  that  is 
the  way  I  respectfully  suggest  that  hereaf- 
ter when  you  want  to  discuss  with  the 
Saints  that  instead  of  getting  a  professed 
minister  of  the  gospel,  you  just  buy  one  of 
Howe's  or  John  Hide's  books  against  the 
Mornjons,  and  when  our  minister  has  mtide 
his  argument  you  just  arise  and  read  the 
stories  from  Hide,  or  Tucker,  or  Howe,  or 
Kidder,  or  Smucker,  or  Beadle,  or  Ann 
Eliza,  or  John  D.  Lee — you  can't  go  amiss 
— they  are  all  directly  to  the  point.  No 
difference  what  the  question  is,  they  will 
testify.  But  in  contradiction  to  such  a  course 
I  suggest  that  if  my  reasons  are  not  good 
he  ought  to  show  such  facts,  and  which  he 
can  well  afford  to  do,  if  they  are  bad. 

But  here  I  will  now  take  up  my  affirma- 
tive proofs.  It  is  well  known  that  for  the 
iniquity  of  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel,  God 
gave  them  into  the  hands  of  Shalmaneser, 
and  he  carried  them  into  Assyria,  since 
which  time  they  have  not  been  known  in 
the  history  of  nations.  The  tribes  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin,  with  remnants  of  tribes, 
remained  at  Jerusalem  until  about  seventy 
yean  aftor  the  coming  of  Christ,  when  Je- 
rusalem was  beseiged  by  the  Romans,  the 
city  was  taken  and  destroyed  together  with 
the  magnificent  temple,  and  the  Jews  were 
scattered  among  the  nations.  Since  that, 
neither  Judah  nor  Israel  has  been  an  inde- 
pend  i,L  .lotion  in  the  earth.  As  nations 
they  have  been  blotted  out  from  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  world.  They  (they  Jews)  are 
only  known  in  their  scattered  state.  Their 
city  and  coveted  land  has,  for  Jo,  those  ages, 
been  under  the  feet  of  their  enemies.  This 
has  been  so  truly  the  case  that  it  has  been 
a  current  belief  in  the  world  that  they 
would  never  again  be  restored  to  their  land 
or  become  a  great  nation.  That  the  Lord 
has  utterly  rejected  them.  But  Paul  cor- 
rected that  idea  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans 
11:1-2: 

"I  say  then  has  God  cast  away  his  peo- 
ple ?  God  forbid !  For  I  am  an  Israelite 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  of  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin. God  has  not  cast  away  his  people 
which  he  foreknew." 

Paul  was  right,  for  God  had  declared  as 
an  unalterable  decree,  as  fixed  as  the  ordi- 
nances of  heaven,  that  they  should  be  re- 
membered, and  not  cease  to  be  a  nation  for- 
ever. Jer.  31 :  35,  40. 

"Thus  saith  the  Lord,  which  giveth  the 
sun  for  a  light  by  day  and  the  ordinances  of 
the  moon  and  the  stars  for  a  light  by  night, 
which  divideth  the  sea  when  the  waves 


thereof  roar;  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  his 
name."  Verse  36:  "  If  those  ordinances 
depart  from  before  me,  saith  the  Loid,  then 
the  seed  of  Israel  also  shall  cease  from 
being  a  nation  before  me  forever."  Verse 
37  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  if  heaven  above 
can  be  measured  and  the  foundation  of  the 
earth  searched  out  beneath,  I  will  also  cast 
off  all  the  seed  of  Israel  for  all  that  they 
have  done  saith  the  Lord."  Verse  38: 
"  Behold  the  days  come  saith  the  Lord, 
that  the  city  shall  be  built  to  the  Lord  from 
the  tower  of  Hananeel  to  the  gate  of  the 
corner."  Verse  39 :  "And  the  measuring 
l*ne  shall  yet  go  forth  over  against  it  upon 
the  hill  Gareb,  and  shall  compass  about  to 
Goath." 

They  were  to  be  scattered  and  peeled  ; 
"  become  a  hiss  and  a  by  word  among  the 
nations,"  but  they  were  to  be  gathered 
again  in  God's  own  due  time:  hence  Paul 
says,  "God  has  not  forgotten  his  people." 
But  when  will  their  restoration  commence? 
The  learning  of  men  is  not  able  to  answer. 
But  God  by  his  prophets  has  made  it  quite 
clear.  As  if  on  purpose  to  correct  this 
popular  error,  Paul  writes  :  "  For  I  would 
not  my  brethren  have  you  ignorant  of  this 
mystery,  lest  ye  should  be  wise  in  your 
own  conceits ;  that  blindness  in  part  has 
happened  to  Israel,  until  the  fullness  of  the 
Gentiles  be  come  in.  And  so  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved,  as  it  is  written.  There  shall 
come  out  of  Sion  the  Deliverer,  and  shall 
turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob :  For 
this  is  my  covenant  unto  them,  when  I 
shall  takeaway  their  sins."  Rom.  11 :  25, 26. 

When  the  time  comes  that  God  will  take 
away  the  sin  of  Israel, — about  the  time 
that  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  should 
come  in, — by  their  turning  away  from  un- 
godliness, or  hardness  of  heart — he  will 
make  a  covenant  with  them.  Jesus  fixes 
this  event  at  the  same  time  with  Paul,  and 
says,  "Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of 
the  Gentiles."  But  how  long?  He-con- 
tinues, "  Until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be 
fulfilled."  Luke  21:  24.  Jerusalem  was  to 
be  in  the.  hands  of  the  Gentiles  until  these 
predictions  of  Christ  and  Paul  should  be 
fulfilled.  Then  God  would  renew  his  cove- 
nant with  them.  But  when  is  the  time 
when  Jerusalem  shall  cease  to  be  trodden 
down  of  the  Gentiles,  and  God  shall  take 
away  the  sin  of  Israel  and  renew  his 
covenant  f  Let  the  prophet  answer.  Jere- 
miah says : 

"Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  I  will  perform  the  good  things  which 
I  have  promised  unto  the  house  of  Israel 
and  the  house  of  Judah.  In  those  days, 
and  at  that  time,  will  I  cause  the  branch  of 
righteousness  to  grow  up  unto  David,  and 
he  shall  execute  judgment  and  righteous- 
ness in  the  land.  In  those  days  shall 
Judah  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem  dwell 
safely." 

That  is  the  age  and  time  when  God  will 
begin  the  work  that  is  to  effect  the  restora- 
tion of  Israel  to  their  ancient  homes  ; 
when  their  sins  shall  be  pardoned,  and 
God's  covenant  established  among  them. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


169 


It  is  the  same  time  referred  to  by  both  Paul 
and  Jesus.    So  the  prophet  goes  on  to  state : 

"  Behold  the  days  come  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and 
with  the  house  of  Judah.  Not  according  to  the  cove- 
nant that  I  made  with  them  when  1  took  them  by  the 
hand  to  bring  them  outof  the  land  of  Egypt:  which 
my  covenant  they  brake,  although  I  was  a  husband- 
man unto  them  saith  the  Lord.  But  this  shall  be  the 
covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  hou~e  of  Israel 
after  those  days  saith  the  Lord.  I  will  put  my  law  in 
their  inward  parts  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and  I  will 
be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  they 
shall  teach  no  more  every  man  his  neigh  bor,  mid  every 
man  his  brother.  Buying,  Know  the  Lord;  for  they 
shall  know  me  from  the  leastof  them  (o  the  greatest  of 
them,  saith  the  Lord ;  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity, 
and  I  will  remember  their  sins  no  more." 

Nothing  need  be  made  plainer  than  this 
prediction  in  order  to  be  well  understo  >d. 
When  God  takes  away  the  "sin"  of  Israel 
he  is  to  "remember  their  iniquities  no 
more."  He  is  to  make  with  them  a  cove- 
nant, and  the  law  is  to  be  written  in  their 
hearts,  not  on  tables  of  stone.  "Moreover, 
I  will  make  a  covenant  of  peace  with  them  ; 
it  shall  be  an  everlasting  covenant,  with 
them,  and  I  will  place  them,  and  multiply 
them,  and  will  set  my  sanctuary  in  the 
midst  of  them  forever  more."  Ezek.  37:26. 

In  view  of  accomplishing  this  event,  it  is 
written  : 

"  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  it  shall 
no  more  be  said  the  Lord  liveth  that  brought  up  the 
children  of  Israel  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt;  but 
the  Lord  liveth  that  brought  up  the  children  of 
Israel  from  the  land  of  the  north ;  and  from 
all  the  lands  whither  he  had  driven  them;  and  I 


will  bring  them  again  unto  the  lands  that  I  gave  nnto 
their  fathers.  Behold  I  will  send  for  many  fishers  and 
they  shall  fish  them,  and  aiti-rwards  will  I  send  for  many 
hunters  and  they  shall  hunt  them  from  every  moun- 
tain and  from  every  hill,  and  out  of  the  holes  of  the 
rocks."  Ezek.  16  : 14-16. 

And  in  order  to  accomplish  their  restora- 
tion, as  thus  pointed  out,  the  Lord  says  : 
"I  will  direct  their  work  in  truth,  and  I 
will  make  an  everlasting  covenant  with 
them.  And  their  seed  shall  be  known 
among  the  Gentiles  and  their  offspring 
among  the  people."  Isaiah  61:8,9. 

Here  Israel  is  to  be  revealed  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  their  offspring  among  the  peo- 
ple. Their  lineage  is  to  be  discovered.  And 
how?  Evidently  as  in  old  time,  when 
doubts,  or  no  certainty  was  had  concern- 
ing the  lineage  of  certain  of  the  tribes, 
who  sought  to  be  registered  among  those 
who  were  reckoned  by  genealogy,  but  they 
were  not  found;  "they  were  not  to  eat  of 
the  most  holy  things,  till  there  stood  up  a 
priest  with  Urim  and  Thummim."  Ezra 
2:63.  Neh.7:65.  As  the  "Urim  andThutn- 
mim"  was  the  means  by  which  ancient 
Israel  and  their  lineage  was  revealed,  it 
will  doubtless  be  the  means  that  God  will 
employ  to  make  their  "seed  known  among 
the  Gentiles,  and  their  offspring  among  the 
people."  God  will  work  like  himself;  "He 
will  reveal  his  secrets  to  his  servants  the 
prophets."  Amos  3:7. 

(Time  called.) 


MR.   BRADEN'S    SIXTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:  \Vewill  now  call  your  at- 
tention to  a  radical  difference  between  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Bible.  In  the  Bible 
the  miraculous  power  of  God  was  sparingly 
exerted,  and  revelations  were  sparingly 
given.  God  never  did  for  man  what  he 
could  do  for  himself,  for  such  help  would 
have  been  injurious,  just  as  doing  every- 
thing for  a  child  ruins  him.  With  his  ten- 
dency to  exaggeration,  extravagance  and 
falsehood,  Rigdon,  in  his  fiction,  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  has  miraculous  power  exerted 
on  all  occasions,  even  the  most  trivial  and 
in  the  most  extraordinary  manner.  He 
is  constantly  loading  his  miraculous  cannon 
to  shoot  some  flea  of  difficulty.  Miraculous 
power  was  as  common  among  the  Nephites 
as  the  use  of  speech.  Their  miracles  are 
so  much  more  wonderful  than  those  of  the 
Bible.  At  the  birth  of  Christ  the  Bible 
tell  us  that  a  star  appeared.  Rigdon  tells 
us  that  it  was  as  light  as  mid-day  all  night. 
At  the  crucifixion  the  Bible  tells  us  that 
darkness  covered  the  land  around  Jerusa- 


lem for  three  hours  and  there  was  an  earth- 
quake in  Asia  Minor.  Rigdon  tells  us  a 
horrible  darkness  covered  the  whole  earth 
three  days  and  three  nights  or  until  Christ 
arose — all  the  time  he  was  in  the  tomb. 
The  Bible  tells  us  that  some  saints  arose 
during  the  earthquake  at  the  crucifixion. 
Sydney  tells  us  multitudes  arose  three 
days  after,  at  the  resurrection.  Rigdon  lets 
King  Ahasuerus'  horse  run  away  with  him 
every  time  he  gets  to  fabricating  miracles, 
Rigdon  regarded  miracles  as  the  all  in  all  of 
revelation,  as  such  an  extravagant  vision- 
ary fabricator  of  lies  would  naturally  do. 
The  Bible  teaches  us  that  they  are  merely 
a  means  to  an  infinitely  higher  end,  and 
worthless  except  as  they  accomplish  that 
purpose,  and  will  cease  when  it  is  accomp- 
lished. It  teaches  that  the  Corinthian 
Church  that  excelled  all  others  in  its  won- 
ders, was  the  most  imperfect  Church  in  l*»» 
days  of  the  Apostles.  That  is  true  to  day. 
Th*e  lowest  displays  of  religion  are  among 
the  negroes  of  the  South,  Spiritists,  Mor- 
mons, and  in  meeting  and  revivals  wher« 


J70 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


there  are  the  most  claims  made  to  super- 
natural power.  Spiritism  is  a  low  system. 
Negro  religion  is  a  disgusting  caricature. 
So  is  Mormonism  with  the  gibberish  called 
speaking  with  tongues,  its  pretended  reve- 
lations, its  rubbing  with  sweet  oil.  It  is  a 
childish  superstition.  It  substitutes  won- 
ders for  divine  truth. 

The  supernatural  of  the  Bible  differs  from 
Mormonism  in  every  particular.  The  his- 
tory of  the  Bible  occurred  in  the  midst  of  the 
worlds  history  and  was  a  wonderful  part  of 
it.  There  is  no  getting  off  into  Utopia, — 
Nowhere,  as  in  the  case  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. No  studious  avoiding  the  crucial 
test  of  connection  with  the  world's  history. 
No  hiding  plates  in  the  ground.  No 
clumsy  contrivance  of  plates  and  bungling 
machinery  of  stone  interpreters.  No  hid- 
ing behind  blankets.  No  handing  plates 
down  out  of  heaven,  that  are  of  no  conceiv- 
able use.  For  their  contents  are  not  read 
from  them  but  are  given  word  by  word  in  the 
crown  of  an  old  hat,  and  seen  by  peeping 
through  a  stolen  peepstorie.  No  hiding  of 
plates  or  manuscript  when  copied  or  trans- 
lated. No  concealment.  No  contradictory 
absurdities.  None  of  the  surroundings 
that  imposture  always  throws  around 
itself.  There  were  no  surroundings  of  pre- 
vious imposture  vagabondism  and  crime. 
Compare  Mormouism  with  all  other  frauds 
and  it  has  every  objectional  feature  of  all 
them,  exaggerated.  The  prophecies  of  the 
Bible  are  majestic  outlines  surrounded  by 
the  clouds  of  unrevealed  mysteries  out  of 
which  they  appear.  They  arouse  expecta- 
tion, they  cheer  with  promises,  or  warn 
with  threats,  but  they  give  only  grand  out- 
lines. The  prophecies  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon are  as  minute  and  exact,  and  as  full 
and  set  forth  the  event  as  completely  as  the 
first  machine  exhibits  every  detail,  of  all 
other  machines  made  just  like  it.  In  noth- 
ing is  this  more  apparent  than  in  the  proph- 
ecies concerning  Christ.  If  all  prophecies 
in  the  Old  Testament  that  are  claimed  to  be 
prophecies  of  Christ,  were  real  Messianic 
prophecies,  they  would  not  foretell  as 
much  concerning  him  as  a  meagre  table  of 
contents  tells  of  what  is  in  a  book.  When 
we  reduce  the  list  to  its  proper  proportions, 
about  twenty  Messianic  prophecies,  they 
do  not  foretell  more  of  his  career  than  a 
title  page  does  of  a  book.  The  prophecies  in 
;he  Book  of  Mormon  begin  with  Christ's 
mother's  name,  and  they  foretell  every  inci- 
dent of  his  career  with  the  minuteness  of 
history.  They  even  foretell  his  exact  lan- 
guage, a  thing  the  Bible  does  not  do  in  a 
single  instance,  and  close  with  his  ascen- 
sion. We  have  as  exact  history  as  we  have 
in  the  New  Testament.  Rigdon  was  deter- 
mined that  his  prophecies  should  excell  the 
Bible,  and  he  copied  the  New  Testament 
to  such  an 'extent  that  the  fraud  is  as  impu- 
dent as  it  would  be  to  introduce  a  child  to 
his  father,  or  a  man  to  his  wife. 

The  writers  and  speakers  of  the  Bible 
give  their  message  to  the  world  with  the 
dignified  confidence  of  conscious  truth  and 
inspiration.  They  do  not  stoop  to  hedging 


against  doubt  and  unbelief.  They  declare 
their  message  and  leave  it  with  the  reader 
or  hearer  without  argumentor  excuse.  The 
writer  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  begins  hedg- 
on  the  first  page,  and  his  last  page  closes- 
with  hedging  against  objections  and  unbe- 
lief, anticipating  them  and  trying  to  pre- 
v»  nt  them,  and  to  answer  them.  We  are- 
told  with  painful  iteration  and  reiteration, 
on  nearly  every  page,  how  the  Lord  com- 
manded them  to  make  plates,  to  record  on 
them  this  and  that.  What  care  the  Lord 
took  to  have  the  plates  preserved.  How 
they  were  revised  and  corrected  by  the  Lord. 
How  they  were  hid  up  unto  the  Lord.  How 
interpreters  were  provided  and  preserved. 
That  "if  there  be  fault,  it  be  the  mistake  of 
men."  We  are  besought  not  to  condemn 
the  record  on  account  of  imperfections. 
That  they  would  have  done  better  if  they 
had  had  more  time,  or  if  they  had  written 
in  another  language.  That  a  more  perfect 
account  is  yet  to  be  brought  to  light.  The 
arguments  of  those  who  contended,  as  the 
Disciples  did  with  Rigdon,  that  we  have  a 
perfect  revelation  in  the  Bible,  are  elabor- 
ately stated  and  answered  with  all  the  bit- 
terness that  Rigdon  felt  against  the  Disci- 
ples because  they  rejected  his  fanatical  hob- 
bies. All  the  objections  that  it  is  thought 
will  be  urged  against  Imposter  Joe  are  an- 
ticipated and  discussed.  A  language  that 
no  one  ever  heard  of  is  fabricated  as  the 
language  in  which  the  plates  were  written. 
They  are  miraculously  preserved  and  the 
records  are  engraved  on  plates  in  the  most 
imperishable  manner.  In  all  this  we  see 
the  conscious  fear  and  guilt  of  the  impostor 
hedging  against  detection  in  his  fraud.  It 
is  as  different  from  the  Bible  as  falsehood  is 
from  truth. 

We  propose  now  to  show  that  the  Book 
of  Mormon  is  destitute  of  every  particle  of 
evidence  necessary  to  sustain  an  uninspired 
book.  What  must  be  proved  to  sustain  the 
Book  of  Mormon?  I.  That  the  family  of 
Jared  emigrated  to  this  continent  from  the 
Tower  of  Babel,  escaping  the  confusion  of 
tongues.  II.  That  Jared's  brother  and 
Ether  did,  by  Divine  command  and  inspira- 
tion, engrave  on  plates  the  history  of  these 
people.  III.  That  Limbi  and  King  Benja- 
min obtained  these  plates  and  handed  them 
down,  so  that  Moroni  abridged  them.  IV. 
That  Lehi  and  his  family  emigrated  to  this 
country  from  Jerusalem  in  the  first  year  of 
the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  V.  That  Lehi,  Nephi 
and  other  prophets  by  Divine  command, 
and  inspiration  kept  a  history  and  engraved 
it  on  plates.  VI.  That  members  of  the  fam- 
ily of  Zedekiah  migrated  from  Jerusalem 
to  the  land  near  the  Isthmus  of  Darien. 
VII.  That  they  were  discovered  by  the 
Nephites  during  the  reign  of  their  King 
Zarahemla.  VIII.  That  Zarahemlites  and 
Nephites  were  united.  IX.  That  their  his- 
tory was  kept  by  a  succession  of  prophets 
by  Divine  command  and  inspiration.  X. 
That  Mormon,  by  Divine  command  and  in- 
spiration, abridged  these  records.  XI.  That 
Moroni  finished  the  abridgment  and  buried 
it.  XII.  That  in  the  form  of  an  angel  Moroni 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


171 


appeared  to  Joe  Smith  and  gave  him  the 
plates  he  had  buried.  XIII.  That  Joe  Smith 
by  inspiration  translated  the  plates.  XIV. 
That  we  have  that  translation  and  an 
abridgement  of  the  history  of  Nephites, 
Zarahemlites  and  Jaredites  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  Such  is  the  claim.  What  attempt 
is  made  to  sustain  it? 

How  do  we  sustain  the  claims  of  any 
ancient  book?  Xenophon's  Anabasis  for 
instance?  I.  We  show  that  it  is  the. uni- 
versal belief  of  the  world,  learned  and  crit- 
ical as  well  as  unlearned,  that  Xenophon 
wrote  the  Anabasis,  and  that  we  have  in  it 
what  he  wrote,  and  that  he  wrote. the  truth. 
II.  We  show  that  such  has  been  the  uni- 
versal belief  of  each  generation  until  we 
reach  the  generation  in  which  it  is  claimed 
that  Xenophon  lived  and  wrote.  III.  We 
then  show  that  the  people  of  that  genera- 
tion, in  their  literature,  mention  Xenophon, 
his  book,  and  that  they  accepted  it  as  true. 
IV.  We  show  that  other  writers  of  that  age 
record  the  same  events,  mention  the  same 
persons  and  events.  V.  We  show  the 
places,  customs,  surroundings  that  it  men- 
tions are  true ;  that  it  interlocks  truthfully 
in  geography,  customs,  literature,  etc.,  with 
the  surroundings  and  with  the  age  that  it 
describes.  Such  is  the  course  we  pursue  to 
sustain  the  claims  of  an  uninspired  book. 

How  much  of  this  proof  has  the  Book  of 
Mormon?  I.  It  is  not  universally  received 
by  this  generation,  learned  and  critical  and 
unlearned,  as  what  it  purports  to  be.  II. 
We  can  trace  it  no  further  back  than  Joe 
Smith,  in  1830.  III.  Before  he  gave  it  to 
the  world,  not  a  soul  had  heard  or  knew 
one  particle  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  or  its 
contents,  or  a  single  incident  in  its  pre- 
tended history.  IV.  Not  another  genera- 
tion or  book  knows  a  particle  about  it  or  its 
pretended  history.  V.  From  the  Tower  of 
Babel  to  1830  not  a  human  being  knew  of 
the  Book,  or  knew  a  single  particle  of  its 
pretended  history.  VI.  Mormons  cannot 
appeal  to  a  single  book,  fact,  custom  or 
place  back  of  Joe  Smith.  VII.  Its  pre- 
tended history  interlocks  with  no  other, 
does  not  even  touch  it.  Its  places,  customs, 
persons  and  events  are  utterly  unknown  to 
all  geography,  history  or  literature.  VIII. 
We  have  neither  coins,  inscriptions,  ruins, 
or  any  relics  that  can  be  traced  to  its  per- 
sons or  pretended  history.  IX.  It  stands 
upon  the  assertion  of  Joe  Smith  as  entirely, 
and  it  is  unsupported  by  anything  else,  as 
the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  stands 
upon  the  inspiration  of  Moses.  Even  more 
so,  for  science  has  shown  that  the  Mosaic 
account  is  a  correct  outline  of  the  course  of 
evolution  in  creation.  But  there  are  no  rel- 
ics, no  remains,  no  fossils  to  sustain  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  If  it  claimed  to  be  writ- 
ten without  inspiration,  like  Champollion's 
translations  of  Egyptian  papyrus,  ft  has  no 
evidence  to  sustain  it  such  as  he  produced. 
He  showed  the  papyrus.  By  comparing  his 
translation  with  Greek  records  of  the  same 
events,  he  proved  that  he  had  translated 
correctly.  He  proved  by  an  appeal  to  other 
history,  to  literature,  to  customs  and  sur- 


roundings, that  his  translation  and  iti 
statements  were  sustained. 

No  one  but  the  few  witnesses  ever  claimed 
to  have  seen  Im  poster  Joe's  plates.  No  one 
ever  knew  whether  he  translated  correctly 
or  not.  No  one  ever  knew  an  idea  tha't 
would  sustain  his  translation  or  its  state- 
ments. All  the  proof  we  have  is  certain 
assertions.  I.  Imposter  Joe  asserts  that  an 
angel  gave  him  certain  plates.  II.  That  he 
translated  them  by  the  gift  and  power  of 
God.  III.  That  what  is  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  is  that  translation.  IV.  The  three 
witnesses  declare  that  by  a  miracle  they 
were  showed  certain  plates.  V.  That  the 
voice  of  God  declared  to  them  that  Joe's 
translation  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  true. 
VI.  The  eight  witnesses  declare  that  they 
handled  certain  plates.  All  they  say  be- 
yond that  is  an  assertion  of  what  they  did 
not  know.  The  appearance  of  Moroni  to 
Imposter  Joe  was  a  miracle.  So  was  his 
giving  Imposter  Joe  the  plates.  Of  this  we 
have  not  one  scrap  of  evidence  but  that  of 
Imposter  Joe.  The  translation  of  the  plates 
was  a  miracle.  That  the  Book  of  Mormon 
contained  the  translation  thus  miraculously 
made  we  have  the  testimony  of  four  per- 
sons—Imposter  Joe,  Martin  Harris,  Oliver 
Cowdrey  and  David  Whitmer. 

We  may  as  well  dispose  of  impostor  Joe 
first.  The  questions  we  have  to  settle  are : 
I.  Is  the  point  to  be  established  suscepti- 
ble of  proof?  We  will  concede  that  as  far 
as  Imposter  Joe  is  concerned  he  is  compe- 
tent. II.  Are  the  witnesses  of  sufficient  in- 
telligence to  be  competent?  We  will  con- 
cede that  Joe  is.  III.  Is  he  worthy  of  be- 
lief?  Is  he  of  good  character  for  truth  and 
veracity?  We  will  impeach  Imposter  Joe 
under  this  test.  IV.  Was  he  disinterested 
in  the  issue?  We  will  impeach  Imposter 
Joe  under  this  test.  V.  Was  there  collus- 
ion ?  We  will  impeach  Imposter  Joe  un- 
der this  head.  VI.  Has  his  testimony  the 
consistence,  harmony  and  appearance  of 
truth?  We  will  impeach  Imposter  Joe  under 
this  test.  Is  Imposter  Joe  worthy  of  belief? 
For  years  before  he  told  the  story  about  the 
revelation  and  its  inspiration  he  had  spent 
his  time  in  witching  for  water,  pretending 
to  find  lost  property,  buried  treasures  and 
mines  of  precious  metals.  This  is  the  uni- 
versal testimony  of  his  neighbors.  It  is  ad- 
mitted by  his  mother  in  her  history  (Pages 
96,  97)  and  by  the  editor  supposed  to  be  W. 
W.  Blair,  an  apostle  in  the  Reorganized 
concern.  That  this  was  a  fraud  and  decep- 
tion no  one  will  question.  If  Joe  lied  in  his 
pretended  marvelous  hunting  for  water, 
&c.,  he  lied  in  his  pretended  miraculous  re- 
ception of  plates  and  translation  of  them. 
Smith  lied  concerning  the  fictitious  stone 
vault  in  which  he  said  he  found  the  plates. 
Smith  lied  concerning  his  pretended  trans- 
lation of  the  papyrus,  now  in  the  book  of 
Abraham.  If  he  perpetrated  a  fraud  in  that 
book  and  translation  he  did  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  and  the  pretended  translation  of  it 
from  pretended  plates.  Fifty -one  neighbors 
and  acquaintances  testify  that  Imposter  Joe 
was  universally  considered  to  be  entirelj 


172 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


destitute  of  moral  character,  addicted  to  vi- 
cious habits,  and  utterly  unworthy  of  belief. 
Eleven  more  testify  that  he  was  intemperate 
and  unworthy  to  be  believed.  Over  twenty 
more  testify  in  separate  affidavits  to  the 
same  effect,  among  these  his  father-iu-law 
and  his  brother-in-law. 

Henry  Harris  testifies  in  an  affidavit 
that  he  was  on  a  jury  before  which  Smith 
testified,  and  that  in  their  deliberations  the 
jury  threw  out  Smith's  testimony  because 
they  regarded  it  as  utterly  unworthy  of  be- 
lief. All  these  80  odd  persons  were  inti- 
mate acquaintances.  Was  Joseph  Smith  in- 
terested ?  He  was  sole  author  and  propri- 
etor of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  according  to 
copy-right.  He  repeatedly  declared  that 
he  would  make  money  out  of  it.  He  was 
practicing  a  fraud  for  money,  just  as  he 
hunted  for  water,  lost  property,  and  hidden 
treasure,  and  precious  metals,  for  money, 
as  a  fraud.  Was  there  collusion  ?  As  we 
will  show  the  pretended  revelations  of  June 
1829  were  fabricated  in  1835,  and  dated  back 
and  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  shows 
that  Imposter  Joe  wrote  the  revelation  and 
both  affidavits  and  certificates. 

Are  Smith's  statement*  consistent  and 
worthy  of  belief?  At  first  he  told  his 
neighbors  he  had  found  plates  and  mention- 
ed nothing  else.  In  his  autobiography  he 
adds  "and  a  breast-plate  worn  by  the  an- 
cients." In  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and 
Covenants  he  adds  Lehi's  compass  and  La- 
ban's  sword.  Which  of  these  statements 
are  to  be  believed?  Imposter  Joe  told 
Peter  Ingersoll  that  his  whole  story  was  a 
hoax.  He  had  no  such  book.  He  did  not 
believe  there  was  any  such  book  ;  but  "he 
had  got  the  damned  fools  fixed  and  he 
should  carry  out  the  fun."  He  told  Willard 
Chase  he  was  to  keep  his  book  two  years 
and  not  let  any  one  see  it  but  himself.  He 
told  his  father-in-law,  Isaac  Hale,  the 
first  one  to  see  it  was  a  young  child.  He 
told  N.  C.  Lewis  that  he  should  see  the 
plates  and  lied,  for  he  could  not  show  him 
any.  He  told  his  brother-in-law  that  after 
keeping  the  plates  18  months  he  would 
show  them  to  the  world.  He  told  Henry 
Harris  that  no  one  could  tee  the  plates  but 
himself  and  wife.  He  promised  his  broth- 
er-in-law, Alva  Hale,  he  would  show  him 
the  plates,  got  mad,  and  lied,  and  could  not 
show  any.  He  told  Levi  Lewis  that 
the  reason  he  did  not  show  him  the  plates, 
according  to  promise,  was  that  God  had  de- 
ceived him.  He  told  Sophia  Lewis  that  the 
plates  could  only  be  opened  by  his  first 
child,  which  would  be  a  male  child, 
it  was  still  born.  We  might  continue 
his  lies  indefinitely.  W«  shall  show  that 
his  revelations  are  contradictory  false, 
the  frauds  ot  a  low  trickster.  That  he  lied 
in  them.  His  pretended  traiisiat:  :>n  of  tho 
book  of  Abraham  was  a  tran.«paient  fraud. 
He  bought  some  Egyptian  ipummies.  He 
pretended  to  translate  tr»e  papyri  found 
with  them,  ami  published  the  translation, 
claiming  that,  the  papyrus  was  written  by 
Abraham,  and  the  translation  is  now  in 
"The  Pearl,  of  Great  Price"  as  one  of  his 


greatest  revelations  and  achievements.  A 
French  scholar  has  translated  the  papyri — 
a  portion  of  them — and  proved  that  his  pre- 
tended translation  is  a  fabrication,  every 
word  of  it.  He  lied  in  his  Book  of  Abra- 
ham. He  lied  in  his  tale  about  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  The  pretended  facsimile  of  what 
was  engraved  on  the  plat4**,  that  he  gave  to 
his  dupes,  is  a  most  transparent  fraud,  made 
up  of  the  letters  and  numerals  of  the  Eng- 
lish alphabet,  inverted  or  reversed.  Out  of 
68  characters  64  are  palpably  copies  of  our 
alphabet,  figures  and  punctuation  marks. 
But  it  would  be  an  insult  to  follow  this 
work  further. 

We  will  next  examine  the  three  witneses. 
We  object  to  their  testimony. 

i.  If  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants 
be  true  before  they  pretend  to  have  seen 
the  plates  Impostor  Joe  presents  them 
with  a  pretended  revelation  in  which  they 
are  told  just  what  they  shall  testify.  The 
words  they  use  in  their  testimony  are  iden- 
tical with  the  words  in  this  "pretended 
revelation. 

II.  In  March  1829  Imposter  Joe  presents 
Harris  with  a  pretended  revelation  in  which 
the  identical  words  of  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses  occurs. 

III.  In    that    revelation  Harris  is  com- 
manded to  lie,  to  say  that  he  had  seen  the 
plates   when  he  has  not  se^n  them  and  is 
reminded  that  he  had  promised  Joe  that  he 
would  tell  such  a  lie. 

t  IV.  The  testimony  is  not  like  the  evi- 
dence presented  to  prove  that  Spaulding 
wrote  the  Manuscript  Found,  a  series  of 
independent  statements,  but  a  joint  state- 
ment without  date,  written  by  Joe  Smith 
as  comparison  with  his  two  pretended 
revelations  just  named  will  show.  It  has 
every  mark  of  fraud  and  collusion.  It  is 
prefaced  by  two  pretended  revelations,  in 
one  of  which  one  of  the  witnesses  is  com- 
manded to  lie.  And  is  reminded  that  he 
had  promised  to  lie.  It  tells  them  what  they 
shall  say,  and  it  is  written  out  by  Imposter 
Joe  and  signed  by  his  three  confederates  in 
fraud. 

The  witnesses  are  interested  in  the  issue. 
Harris  had  his  farm  staked  on  its  succes. 
Cowdery  had  months  of  time  staked  on  it. 
Harris  declares  "If  the  whole  affair  was  a 
fraud  he  expected  to  make  money  out  of  it." 
All  expected  to  make  money  out  of  it. 
Harris  was  bought  with  'the  promise  of  a 
monopoly  of  the  sales  of  the  book.  He  ex- 
pected to  clear  over  $3,000.00.  Harris  was 
noted  for  his  absurd  marvelous  stories. 
He  said  that  he  had  see  Jesus  and  "  he  was 
a  beautiful  young  man." 

"He  had  seen  the  devil  and  he  was  a 
jackass  with  hair  like  a  mouse."  He  proph- 
ecied  that  the  nation  would  be  destroyed 
in  four  years  if  they  did  not  accept  Mor- 
moaism.  If  other  witnesses  tell  the  truth 
Harris  lied  to  Amthon  about  how  the  trans- 
laliuq  was  done.  He  lied  about  what 
Amtht  n  said  to  him.  Joe  in  a  revelation 
reminds  Harris  that  he  had  promised  to  lie 
and  commands  him  to  do  so.  In  a  revela- 
Joe  jvarns  him  against  adultery  and 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


173 


murder.  He  used  to  beat  his  wife.  He  sat 
by  her  bedside  as  she  was  dying,  wrote 
a  letter  to  a  woman  he  intended  to  marry, 
brutally  told  his  dying  wife  what  he  was 
doing,  married  his  Leman  in  less  than  two 
weeks  after  his  wife's  death.  He  lived  in 
adultery  with  a  tenant's  wife.  It  was  this 
that  Joe  warned  him  against  and  against 
murdering  her  husband. 

Harris  declared  repeatedly  that  he  had 
as  much  evidence  for  a  Shaker  book  he 
had  as  for  the  Book  of  Mormon.  He  told 
Deacon  Morley,  Maj.  Gilbert,  Mr.  Mark- 
ell,  Mrs.  Mil  liken,  Mr.  Milliken,  Mrs. 
Whitney,  Mrs.  Hansbury,  and  many 
others  that  he  did  not  see  the  plates 
with  his  natural  sight.  He  saw  them 
by  faith.  That  is  he  did  not  see  them, 
but  thought  or  believed  he  saw  them.  He 
told  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hansbury  that  he  did 
not  see  the  plates.  He  saw  the  box  that 
they  were  in  and  heard  them  rattle.  He 
knew  Joe  had  them. 

In  the  Elder's  Journal  of  August,  1838, 
page  49,  Imposter  Joe  denounces  him  "as 
so  far  beneath  contempt  that  a  notice  of 
him  would  be  too  great  a  sacrifice  for  a 
gentleman  to  make.  The  church  exerted 
some  restraint  on  him,  but  now  he  has 
given  loose  to  all  kinds  of  abominations, 
lying,  cheating,  swindling,  with  all  kinds 
of  debauchery."  That  disposes  of  Mart  in 
Harris. 

We  will  now  take  up  Oliver  Cowdery. 
David  Stafford  testifies  that  "Oliver  Cow- 
dery proved  himself  to  be  a  worthless  fel- 
Jow,  not  to  be  trusted  or  believed  when  he 
taught  school  in  this  neighborhood."  Dan- 
foid  Booth  says  he  was  a  low  pettifogger,  a 
cat's-paw  of  the  Smiths  to  do  their  dirty 
work.  Imposter  Joe  is  constantly  warning 
him  in  revelations  of  his  selfishness,  his 
ambition,  his  desire  to  be  some  big  person. 
In  a  pretended  revelation  of  November, 
1831;  Imposter  Joe  bears  this  testimony  to 
Oliver's  character:  "Hearken  unto  *me, 
saith  the  Lord  your  God,  for  my  servant 
Oliver  Cowdery's  sake:  It  is  not  wisdom 
that  he  be  entrusted  with  the  moneys  which 
he  shall  carry  into  the  land  of  Zion  unless 
some  one  shall  go  with  him  who  shall  be 
true  and  faithful."  In  Vol.  I.  of  Times  and 
Seasons,  Hiram  Smith  charges  Oliver  Cow- 
dery with  forging  a  note  against  himself 
(Hiram  Smith),  robbing  his  father  (Joseph 
Smith,  Sr.,)  and  plundering  Joseph  Smith's 
house.  Pages  22-3,  Vol.  I,  Times  and  Sea- 
sons, Hiram  Smith  says : 

"  Persons  came  to  my  house  while  I  was  in  prison 
and  ransacked  it  and  carried  off  money  and  my  valu- 
ables. Among  tho*e  who  treated  me  thus  I  cannot 
help  making  particular  mention  of  Lyman  C  wdery, 
who  In  connection  with  his  brother  Oliver  Cowdery 
took  from  me  a  great  many  things,  and  to  cap  the 
climax  of  his  iniquity  compelled  my  age  i  father,  by 
threatening  to  bring  a  mob  upon  him,  to  deed  over 
to  him  or  his  brother  Oliver  about  160  acres  of  land 
to  pay  a  note  which  he  said  I  had  given  to  Oliver  for 
$165.  Such  not  e  1  confess  I  was.  and  am,  entirely 
entirely  ignorant  of,  and  after  mature  consideration 
I  have  to  say  that  I  believe  it  must  be  a  forgery." 

Witness  Oliver  a  robber,  a  thief,  a  forger! 
Joseph  Smith  says,  in  Times  and  Seasons, 
Vol.  I,  page  80 : 
"  About  this  time  there  were  several  persons  living 


In  the  Far  West  who  were  cut  off  from  the  church 
Thv*e  eh arsi-toi swore  svn'iiously  engaged  in  emula- 
ting f. ilse  and  slanderous  reports  against  (he  Saints  to 
stir  up  oar  enemies  to  drive  us  from  our  homes  and 
enjoy  the  spoils  together.  They  are  as  fallows  :  Oliver 
Cowdery,  David  Whitmor,  etc." 

These  liars  plotting  robbery  are  witnesses 
to  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

In  a  circular  letter  addressed  to  Oliver 
Cowdery,  David  Whitmer  and  others, 
signed  by  Sidney  Rigdon  and  84  other  lead- 
ing Mormons — a  circular  that  was  authenti- 
cated in  a  District  Court  before  Judge  King, 
and  which  is  further  authenticated  in  a 
report  of  a  committee  of  the  United  States 
Senate  and  published  in  the  report  by  au- 
thority of  the  United  States  Government, 
constituting  Congressional  Document  189, 
A.  D.  1841,  Oliver  Cowdery  is  charged  with 
stealing,  lying,  perjury,  counterfeiting,  and 
that  he  was  a  leader  of  a  gang  of  scoundrels 
of  the  blackest  dye.  After  he  abandoned 
Mormonism  he  openly  declared  his  testi- 
mony was  a  lie.  In  a  piece  of  poetry  pub- 
lished in  the  Times  and  Seasons,  occur 
these  lines : 

"  Or  prove  thf>t  Christ  was  not  the  Lord 
Because  that  Peter  cursed  and  swore, 
Or  Book  of  Mormon  not  his  word 
Because  denied  by  Oliver." 

In  this  doggerel  the  Mormons  themselves 
declare  he  repudiated  his  testimony.  He 
committed  adultery  with  a  hired  girl  in 
Kirtland.  He  lived  in  adultery  also  in 
Nauvoo.  Such  is  the  Apostle  Cowdery — 
witness  Cowdery.  He  died  an  apostate,  a 
drunken  sot,  a  beastly  wreck. 

David  Whitmer  next.  He  destroys  his 
testimony  by  the  yarns  he  tells,  and  his 
contradictions.  He  tells  that  Joe  took  him 
into  a  field,  on  Whitmer's  father's  farm, 
and  showed  him  the  plates  lying  on  the 
ground.  He  tells  us  that  the  angel  showed 
them  to  his  (Whitmer's)  mother.  That  the 
angels  sowed  eleven  acres  of  plaster  to  ena- 
ble him  to  go  to  Pennsylvania  to  move  Joe 
(Lucy  Smith's  history,  pp.  144,  145).  That 
he  was  miraculously  enabled  to  do  two 
heavy  days'  work  in  less  than  one  day  (id.) 
That  the  angels  plowed  seven  acres  for  him 
in  the  night  (autobiography  of  Joe  Smith, 
p.  740).  That  Moroni  trudged  alongside  of 
the  wagon  as  he  was  moving  Smith,  sweat- 
ing like  an  old  tramp,  lugging  the  plates. 
The  person  who  will  be  fool  enough  to  have 
any  confidence  in  the  stor,y  of  such  a  man 
after  reading  such  monstrous  and  silly  lies, 
may  do  so,  people  of  sense  will  not.  In 
Times  and  Seasons,  Vol.  I.,  pages  81 , 82, 83,  84 
as  quoted  above.  Imposter  Joe  declares  that 
Cowdery  and  Whitmer  were  studiously  en- 
gaged in  circulating  false  and  slanderous 
reports  and  plotting  fo  rob  the  Saints.  Rig- 
don and  83  other  leading  Mormons,  as  quoted 
above,  denounce  Whitmer  as  being  a  mem- 
ber of  a  gang  of  thieves,  counterfeiters  and 
blacklegs  of  the  deepest  dye.  Page  83  of 
the  Times  and  Seasons  Imposter  Joe  says  : 
"Poor  Phelps,  who  professes  to  be  much  of 
a  prophet,  has  no  other  dumb  beast  to  ride 
but  David  Whitmer,  or  to  forbid  his  mad- 
ness when  he  goes  up  to  curse  Israel.  But 
this  ass  (not  being  of  the  same  kind  as 
Baalam's),  therefore  notwithstanding  the 


174 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


angel  appeared  unto  him,  yet  lie  c&tmot 
sufficiently  penetrate  his  understanding, 
but  that  he  ( Whitmer)  brays  out  curses  in- 
stead of  blessings.  Poor  ass,  whoever  lives 
will  see  him  and  his.  rider  perish  like  those 
who  perished  in  the  gainsaying  of  Noah." 
A  sweetscented  witness,  according  to  God's 
vicegerent  Jmposter  Joe.  Whitmer  has  re- 
peatedly stated  to  his  neighbors  in  Rich- 
mond, Mo.,  that  his  statement  was  a  lie. 
That  the  only  angel  he  saw  was  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Angell. 

We  are  now  ready  for  the  eight  witnesses. 
Their  testimony  is  worthless.  They  testify 
they  saw  and  handled  certain  plates  that 
Joe  showed  them.  That  the  plates  had  on 
them  characters  of  ancient  workmanship, 
and  were  of  ancient  and  curious  workman- 
ship. That  they  saw  as  many  plates  as 
Smith  had  translated.  How  did  they  know 
that  he  had  translated  the  plates  before 
them?  How  did  they  know  that  Joe  had 
translated  any  plates?  That  the  plates 
had  been  given  to  him  by  an  angel?  That 
the  Book  of  Mormon  was  a  translation  of 
the  plates  before  them,  or  of  any  plates  ? 
The  only  thing  they  could  testify  was  that 
Joe  had  showed  them  certain  plates.  All 
the  rest  they  could  not  know,  and  lied  when 
they  said  they  did  know.  Another  fatal 
objection  to  the  testimony  of  both  the  three 
witnesses,  and  of  the  eight,  is  they  are  all 
of  the  gang  of  low,  villainous  followers  of 
Smith,  and  interested  in  the  fraud.  The 
thirteen  are  as  follows  :  Imposter  Joe,  au- 
thor of  the  fraud ;  old  Joe,  his  father,  a 
notorious  drunkard,  liar  and  thief;  Hiram 
Smith,  his  brother,  afterwards  a  leader  in 
Mormonism ;  S.  H.  Smith,  another;  old 
Mrs.  Whitmer,  David  Whitmer,  Christian 
Whitmer,  Peter  Whitmer,  John  Whitmer, 
Oliver  Cowdery,  Hiram  Page,  brother-in- 
law  of  the  Whitmers,  Martin  Harris,  old 
Mrs.  Whitmer  and  Emma  Smith,  Joe's 
wife.  Six  Whitmers,  one  member  of  the 
family,  four  Smiths,  Oliver  Cowdery  and 
Martin  Harris. 

One  afternoon  a  number  of  persons  were 
playing  town  ball  in  the  flat  on  the  bank  of 
the  creek  in  Kirtland,  while  the  Mormons 
were  there.  There  was  whiskey  on  the 
ground,  and  Bill  Smith,  brother  of  Imposter 
Joe,  got  so  drunk  that  he  had  to  sit  down 
between  the  roots  of  a  stump  and  lean  back 


against  the  stump  to  sit  up.  Some  of  the 
Mormons  reminded  him  that  he  was  an- 
nounced to  preach  the  next  day,  and  that 
he  would  not  be  allowed  to  preach  if  he 
made  such  a  display  of  himself.  He  roared 

out,  "  I'll  be  d d  if  I  wont  preach.    If 

they  don't  let  me  preach,  by  O — d  I  will 
tell  all  I  know  about  them  plates."  He 
preached.  On  another  occasion,  while  riding 
with  Mr.  Markell,  he  began  to  sing  an  ob- 
scene song.  Mr.  Markell  reminded  him 
that  he  was  a  preacher,  and  was  to  preach 
the  next  Sunday  (Bill  and  Joe  were  in  a 
quarrel  then).  'Smith  replied:  "  I  am  not 
going  to  preach  any  more.  The  whole 
thing  (meaning  Mormonism)  is  a  d  —  d 
humbug.  I  am  going  to  tell  all  I  know  about 
them  plates."  G.  B.  Frost  swears  in  an 
affidavit  made  in  Boston,  Mass.,  Sept.  16th. 
1S42,  before  Bradford  Sumner,  J.  P.,  that 
Bill  wanted  some  money  of  Joe,  who  re- 
fused him  until  Bill  threatened  to  tell  what 
he  knew  about  the  origin  of  Mormonism. 
Then  Joe  gave  him  the  money.  Of  the 
three,  all  three  apostatized,  and  five  of  the 
eight  witnesses  apostatized.  This  is  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  their  testimony  was  all  a 
fabrication,  gotten  up  by  Imposter  Joe  and 
signed  by 'them  as  confederates  in  a  fraud 
that  they  abandoned  when  it  ceased  to  be 
profitable  to  them.  Another  objection:  In 
the  first  edition  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
the  eight  call  Imposter  Joe  "Author  and 
proprietor"  of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Now 
it  reads  "Translator."  They  allowed  the 
testimony  to  be  doctored  to  suit  the  point  to 
be  established.  They  allowed  it  to  be  fab- 
ricated by  Imposter  Joe,  and  perjured  them- 
selves by  swearing  to  it.  The  two  testimo- 
nies contradict  each  ether  and  Mormon  rev- 
elations. The  Book  of  Mormon  declares 
that  Joe  shall  show  the  plates  to  three  wit- 
nesses. He  showed  them  toeleven.  The  Book 
of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  declares  that 
to  three  and  none  other  will  God  give  'this 
privilege.  It  was  given  to  twelve  besides 
Imposter  Joe.  It  required  a  wonderful  mir- 
acle and  an  angel  to  enable  the  three  to  see 
the  plates.  It  required  no  angel,  no  mira- 
cle to  enable  the  eight.  They  saw  and  han- 
dled them  like  shingles.  So  did  Emma 
Smith,  according  to  her  story,  only  the/ 
were  covered  with  a  "  thin  cloth." 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


175 


MR.  KELLEY'S   SEVENTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — Last  Saturday  evening  Mr. 
Braden  made  the  statement  that  not  one  of 
the  Smith  family  ever  belonged  to  the  Pres- 
byterian or  any  church,  except  as  he  says, 
the  Mormon.  I  have  intended  to  correct  it 
a  number  of  evenings,  but  each  time  it 
has  escaped  my  mind,  so  I  will  do  so  now. 
The  history  is  as  follows: 

"I  was  at  this  time  in  my  fifteenth 
year."  This  is  the  history  written  by  Jo- 
seph Smith  himself.  "My  father's  family 
was  proselyted  to  the  Presbyterian  faith, 
and  four  of  them  joined  that  church,  name- 
ly, my  mother,  also  my  brothers,  Hyrum, 
and  Samuel  Harrison,  and  my  sister 
Bophronia." 

That  is  in  accordance  with  the  statement 
that  I  made  to  the  audience  at  the  time  he 
took  occasion  to  deny  it,  and  the  statement 
is  borne  out  through  the  history  of  the 
church;  and  I  ca^ll  for  the  reading  of  the 
evidence  he  has,  if' he  had  any  foundation 
for  the  statement  which  he  made  to  the 
contrary. 

Last  evening  I  was  just  reading  to  you  an 
argument  based  upon  the  work  that  the 
Lord  would  begin  to  accomplish  or  perform 
in  the  last  days,  and  should  begin  with 
Ephraiin  ;  and  I  had  called  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  restoration  of  this  work 
and  the  bringing  to  light  of  the  seed  of 
Ephraim  himself,  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
must  be  restored  again,  as  was  stated  by 
the  prophet  Nehemiah,  (7 :  65)  which  was 
necessary  in  that  time  also  to  the  restora- 
tion of  certain  ones  before  the  Lord  ;  also, 
that  when  this  was  done  -it  would  be 
through  the  means  of  the  Lord  working 
throughjthe  instrumentality  of  a  prophet.  I 
shall  this  evening  first  follow  out  these  won- 
derful predictions  of  the  prophets,  and  as  I 
trust,  interest  you  in  one  of  the  most  hope- 
ful and  encouraging  promises  God  has  ever 
made  to  his  children. 

As  a  priiicipaland  initiatory  means  of  in- 
augurating the  great  work  of  revealing  the 
seed  of  Israel  as  they  exist  among  the  na- 
tions, and  the  restoring  of  them  to  their 
promised  land,  Isaiah  says,  when  "God 
shall  set  his  hand  again  the  second  time  to 
recover  the  remnant  of  his  people  which 
shall  be  left,  he  will  set  up  an  ensign  for 
the  nations  and  shall  assemble  the  out- 
casts of  Israel,  and  gather  together  the  dis- 
persed of  Judah  from  the  four  corners  of 
the  earth"  11:12. 

The  outcasts  of  Israel  are  the  "ten  tribes;" 
the  dispersed  of  Judah  are  those  scattered 
in  the  year  seventy  by  the  Roman  Army. 
But  the  promise  is  that  both  Israel  and 
Judah  shall  return.  "That  Ephraim  shall 
not  envy  Judah,  and  Judah  shall  not  vex 
Ephraim."  "The  adversaries  of  Judah 
•hall  be  cut  off."  This  kiL»  tiever  been.  A 


"highway  is  to  be  cast  up."  And  God  !s  to 
smite  the  Egyptian  sea  in  the  seven  streams 
and  cause  men  to  go  over  dry  shod.  The 
first  event  to  transpire  in  this  series  of 
events,  is  the  setting  up  of  an  "ensign  to 
the  nations."  Isa.  61:10,  says,  "Go  through, 
go  through  the  gates ;  prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  people ;  cast  up,  cast  up  the  high- 
way ;  gather  out  the  stones  ;  lift  up  a  stand- 
ard for  the  people." 

This  is  just  to  precede  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  is  the  preparatory  work  to 
be  performed  before  his  coming.  'But  what 
is  this  "ensign"  or  "standard"  that  is  to 
be  raised  up?  It  is  evidently  the  warning 
voice  brought  by  the  angel,  "And  I  saw 
another  angel  fly  in  the  midst  of  heaven, 
having  the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  un- 
to them  that  dwell  on  the  earth,  and  to 
every  nation,  kindred,  tongue  and  people, 
saying  with  a  loud  voice,  fear  God,  and  give 
glory  to  him,  for  the  hour  of  his  judgement 
is  come." 

It  is  in  the  gospel  that  the  revelation  and 
establishment  of  the  everlasting  covenant 
is  made  which  is  to  be  written  in  the  hearts 
and  put  in  the  inward  parts  of  Israel,  when 
"God  takes  away  their  sin."  Hence  Paul 
says,  "Written,  not  with  ink,  but  with  the 
Spirit  of  the  living  God ;  not  in  tables  of 
stone,  but  in  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart." 
2  Cor.  3:3.  It  was  the  blood  of  Christ  that 
sanctified  this  covenant.  Heb.  10:29.  It 
is  the  gospel,  that  is  God's  standard  or  en- 
sign to  the  people;  and  Isaiah  says  that  he 
will  "set  it  up."  Isa.  11:  12. 

Jesus  said  in  the  age  of  preparation  that 
should  precede  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  "And  this  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom 
shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  a 

witness  unto  all  nations,  and  then  shall 
the  end  come."  Matt.  24 : 14. 

After  the  Gospel  shall  have  been  preached 
to  all  nations  for  a  witness,  then  the  Savior 
will  come,  "Taking  vengeance  upon  all 
those  that  know  not  God  and  obey  not  the 
Gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  But, 
when  the  Lord  comes  he  is  to  find  Judah 
restored  to  Jerusalem:  Zach.  14.  Who  is 
to  take  the  lead  in  this  restoration  of  the 
tribes,  and  the  bearing  of  this  "standard?" 
Let  inspiration  answer.  "Hear  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  O  ye  nations,  and  declare  it  in 
the  isles  afar  off  and  say,  He  that 
scattered  Israel  will  gather  him,  and  keep 
him  as  a  shepherd  does  a  flock."  "They 
shall  come  with  weeping  and  with  suppli- 
cation will  I  lead  them  ;  I  will  cause  them 
to  walk  by  rivers  of  water  in  a  straight 
way,  wherein  they  shall  not  stumble:  for  I 
am  a  father  to  Israel,  and  Ephraim  is  my 
first-born."  Jer.  31  :  9,  10. 

Ephraim  was  not  the  first  born  of  Joseph's 
sons,  but  the  second ;  and  for  his  iniquity 
God  declared  that  he  would  blot  him  out  aa 


176 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


a  nation,  or  tribe,  to  the  world  and  his 
lineage  should  be  unknown.  "His  root 
dried  up."  Hos.  9:16. 

He  was  to  be  mixed  with  the  people,  but 
not  "utterly  forgotten."  The  Lord  says, 
"  My  heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  repent- 
ings  are  kindled  together  ;  I  will  not  execute 
the  fierceness  of  mine  anger,  I  will  not 
return  to  destroy  Ephraim."  Hosea  11 :8,  9. 

Not  utterly  destroyed,  but  mixed  among 
the  people.  But  when  God  makes  the  seed 
of  Israel  "known  among  the  Gentiles  and 
their  offspring  among  the  people,"  Ephraim 
is  to  be  revealed  ;  for  they  are  the  ten 
thousands  of  Ephraim,  and  the  thousands 
of  Manasseh."  Deut.  33.  Ephraim  is  the 
first-born  in  the  great  work  of  restoring 
Israel  in  the  last  days ;  the  first  revealed, 
and  commissioned  to  "bear  the  "ensign,"  or 
the  "standard,"  to  the  nations,  which  God 
will  set  up.  Ezekiel  says,  referring  to  the 
same  work : 

"  Behoid  I  will  take  the  stick  of  Joseph 
which  is  in  the  hand  of  Ephraim  and  the 
tribes  of  Israel  his  fellows,  and  will  put 
them  with  him  even  with  the  stick  of  Judah, 
and  make  them  one  stick,  and  they  shall 
be  one  in  mine  hand."  "And  say  unto 
them,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  Behold,  I 
will  take  the  children  of  Israel  from  among 
the  heathen  whither  they  be  gone,  and  will 
gather  them  on  every  side  and  bring  them 
into  their  own  land.  And  I  will  make  them 
one  nation  upon  the  mountains  of  Israel, 
and  one  king  shall  be  king  to  them  all ;  and 
they  shall  be  no  more  two  nations,  neither 
shall  they  be  divided  into  two  kingdoms 
any  more  at  all.-"  Ezekiel  37. 

The  Bible,  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
are  by  the  ablest  critics  acknowledged  to 
be  the  stick  of  Judah,  containing  the  things 
of  God  written  "  to  Judah  and  his  fellows." 
The  stick  of  Joseph  in  the  true  interpreta- 
tion must  be  another  record  containing  the 
great;  things  of  God's  law  written  to  him 
and  his  fellows,  that  at  one  time  is  to  be  in 
the  hand  of  Ephraim,  removed  and  joined 
with  the  stick  of  Judah.  But  where  is 
Joseph's  record,  or  the  stick  of  Joseph?  I 
answer,  in  Joseph's  land.  Where  is  that? 
To  the  "  Utmost  bounds  of  the  everlasting 
hills,"  from  Palestine  or  Egypt.  "Utmost" 
signifies  the  farthest  off.  The  "utmost" 
land  from  Goshen  in  Egypt  is  North  and 
South  America.  Hence  Moses  says  : 

'Blessed  of  the  Lord  be  his  (Joseph's) 
land  ;  for  the  precious  things  of  heaven,  for 
the  dew  and  the  deep  that  coucheth  beneath. 
And  for  the  precious  fruit  put  forth  by  the 
sun,  and  for  the  precious  things  put  forth 
by  the  moon.  For  the  chief  things  of  the 
ancient  mountains,  and  precious  things  of 
the  lasting  hills,  and  for  the  precious  things 
of  the  earth  and  the  fulness  thereof."  This 
landed  blessing  was  to  come  upon  the  head 
of  Joseph.  Joseph's  sons,  Manasseh  and 
Ephraim,  inherited  this  land  of  right;  God 
gave  it  to  them.  These  children  were  to 
grow  into  a  multitude  in  the  midst  of  the 
earth."  Gen.  48:H>.  The  younger  brother 
was  to  be  the  greater,  verse  19.  This  being 
their  land  of  inheritance,  God  was  able  to 


bring  them  here.  That  they  came  here 
about  fiOO  years  before  Christ  I  showed  on 
a  previous  evening.  Hence  we  can  under- 
stand the  prophet  when  he  declares  that 
"When  the  Lord  roars'"  the  children  of 
Ephraim  "shall  tremble  from  the  west." 
Hosea  11:10.  When  shall  the  Lord  roar? 
"The  Lord  shall  roar  out  of  Zion,  and  utter 
his  voice  from  Jerusalem,  and  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  shall  shake,  but  the  Lord  will 
be  the  hope  of  his  people,  and  the  strength 
of  the  children  of  Israel."  Joel  3:15.  Then 
it  is  that  Ephraim  shall  be  in  the  west,  be- 
cause he  is  on  Joseph's  land,  in  his  inheri- 
tance. But  the  "stick  of  Joseph"  does  not 
mention  Ephraim  as  coming  to  the  inheri- 
tance, but  Manasseh  only,  it  is  objected. 
True,  but  Ephraim  was  to  be  destroyed  in 
his  identity  as  a  tribe,  his  lineage  cease  to 
be  counted  and  he  be  mixed  among  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  be  utterly  lost  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth  until  he  should  be  revealed  in 
the  last  days  to  become  the  first  born  in 
commencing  lue  work  of  restoration.  It 
was  on  this,  Joseph's  land  (the  land  of 
America)  that  the  "ensign"  was  to  be  raised 
in  the  last  days,  or  the  "standard  set  up." 
Isaiah  says,  "Ho  to  the  land  shadowing 
with  wings  which  is  beyond  the  rivers  of 
Ethiopia."  Stretched  out  in  the  shape  of 
wings — not  as  a  bird  with  wings — but  as 
two  wings  stretched  or  spread  out. 

Now  when  you  stand  at  Jerusalem  and 
look  beyondthe  rivers  of  Ethiopia, — beyond 
the  Niger,  Grande  and  Mezurado,  which  ex- 
tend to  the  west  coast  of  Africa, — the  first 
and  only  land  that  comes  to  view  is  North 
and  South  America.  Theprophetcontinues  : 
"All  ye  inhabitants  of  the  world  and 
dwellers  on  the  earth  see  ye  when  he 
lifteth  up  an  ensign  on  the  mountains  ;  and 
when  he  bloweth  the  trumpet  hear  ye." 
Isaiah  18.  In  the  land  shadowing  with 
wings  the  ensign  was  to  be  raised  ;  and 
the  gospel  trumpet  to  be  blown.  And  as 
all  other  prophets  have  testified,  it  was  to 
be  "just  afore  the  harvest,"  or  "end  of 
the  world."  From  this  land  shadowing 
with  wings  the  messengers  were  to  be  sent 
to  a  people  "'scattered  and  peeled,"  whose 
land  the  rivers,  or  nations,  "  had  spoiled  ;" 
because  of  the  decree,  "Jerusalem  shall  be 
trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the 
time  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in."  Then, 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  behold  I  will 
lift  up  mine  hand  to  the  Gentiles,  and  set 
up  my  standard  to  the  people,  and  they, 
shall  'bring  thy  sons  into  their  arms,  and 
thy  daughters  shall  be  carried  upon  their 
shoulders.  And  kings  shall  be  thy  nurs- 
ing fathers,  and  their  queens  thy  nursing1 
mothers."  Isaiah  49:22.  "Andhewill  Uftf 
up  an  ensign  to  the  nations  from  far,  and  will 
hiss  (call)  unto  them  from  the  end  of  the 
earth."  Isaiah  5:  26.  Standing  at  Jerusa- 
lem and  lifting  up  an  "ensign  from  far" 
at  the  "«ud  of  the  earth,"  and  we  are 
brought  again  to  see  Joseph's  land.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  does  not  say  that  Ephraim 
came  to  America  along  with  his  elder 
brother  to  receive  his  inheritance;  neither 
does  it  say  that  he  did  not  come;  but  it 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


177 


does  say,  that  a  number  came  whose  gen- 
ealogy is  not  given  :  and  as  Ephraiih  had 
equal  rights  of  inheritance  with  his  brother 
Manasseh,  and  his  tribal  name  was  to  be 
blotted  out,  "  his  glory  to  fly  away  like 
a  bird  from  the  birth,"  and  be  mixed  among 
the  people  and  his  name  lost,  until  the 
mighty  work  of  God  should  commence  in 
the  last  days,  it  is  clear  as  to  whyEphraim's 
lineage  is  not  recorded  in  that  work.  When 
the  stick  of  Joseph  was  taken  from  the 
hand  of  Ephraim  and  put  with  the  stick  of 
Judah,  and  this  standard  raised  up,  then 
the  work  that  is  to  result  in  the  restoration 
of  Israel  is  to  commence.  God  says,  "I 
will  take  them  from  among  the  heathen 
and  gather  them  on  every  side,  and  bring 
them  into  their  own  laud.  And  I  will 
make  them  one  nation  and  they  shall 
defile  themselves  no  more."  The  stick  of 
Joseph  says : 

"  But  behold  there  shall  be  many  at  that  day,  when 
I  shall  proceed  to  do  a  marvelous  work  and  a  wonder 
among  them,  that  1  may  remember  my  covenant  which 
I  have  made  unto  the  children  of  men,  that  I  may  set 
my  hand  again  the  second  time  to  recover  my  people 
which  are  of  the  house  of  Israel.  And  my  words  shall 
hiss  forth  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth  for  a  standard 
ttnto  ray  people  which  are  of  the  house  of  Israel.  And 
because  my  words  shall  hiss  forth  many  of  the  Gentiles 
shall  say,  A  Bible,  a  Bible,  we  have  got  a  Bible,  and 
there  cannot  be  any  more  Bible.  Thou  fool  that  shall 
say  a  Bible,  we  have  got  a  Bible  and  we  need  no  more 
Bible.  Know  ye  not  that  there  are  more  nations  than 
one?  Wherefore  murmur  ye  because  ye  shall  receive 
more  of  my  word  ?  Because  that  ye  liave  got  a  Bible  ye 
need  not  suppose  that  it  contains  all  my  words,  neither 
need  ye  suppose  that  I  have  not  caused  more  to  be 
written:  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  my  people 
which  are  of  the  house  of  Israel  shall  be  gathered 
home  unto  the  land  of  their  posessions,  and  my  word 
also  shall  be  gathered  into  one.  And  I  will  show  unto 
them  that  fight  against  my  word  and  against  my  people 
who  are  of  the  house  of  Israel,  that  I  am  God,  and  that 
I  covenanted  with  Abraham  that  I  would  remember 
his  seed  forever."  Pages  105.  106. 

Now,  it  is  thought  by  some  that  possibly 
some  man  might  have  been  smart  enough 
in  the  inauguration  of  the  work  of  the  last 
days  to  have  conformed  his  work  to  all  of 
the  precise  prophecies  in  the  Bible  respect- 
ing that  work.  Can  you  believe  that  there 
is  or  has  been  any  in  the  world's  history 
who  could  take  from  the  Bible  the  prophe- 
tic evidences  in  regard  to  the  restoration  of 
the  work  in  the  last  days,  and  so  bring 
forth  a  work  and  establish  it  in  every  par- 
ticular, that  the  work  itself,  that  he  brought 
forth  would  completely  and  fully  fulfill  all 
the  predictions  that  the  prophets  had  made 
with  regard  to  the  same  work?  Yet  you 
are  called  upon  to  believe  that,  "  ignoramu- 
ses," as  they  have  been  termed  before  you, 
have  been  able  to  do  this. 

"  For  after  the  book  of  which  I  have  spoken  (so  this 
book  nays)  shall  come  forth  and  be  written  unto  the 
Gentiles,  and  sealed  up  unto  the  Lord,  there  shall  be 
many  who  shall  believe  the  words  which  are  written ; 
and  they  shall  carry  them  forth  unto  the  remnantof  our 
seed.  And  then  shall  the  remnant  of  our  seed  know 
concerning  us,  how  that  we  came  out  from  Jerusalem. 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  the  Jews  which  are 
ecattered  also  shall  begin  to  believe  In  Christ,  and  they 
•hall  begin  to  gather  in  upon  the  face  of  the  land." 

How  did  Joseph  Smith  and  Sidney  Rig- 
don  know  this,  and  know  that  the  work 
should  go  forth  unto  all  nations  and  be  ac- 
cepted by  many,  peopl«  when  it  was  pub- 
lished to  the  world  and  before  any  one  had 
accepted  it?  They  did  not  know  that  it 


would  be  any  more  of  a  remarkable  thing 
in  the  world  than  ten  thousand  other  works 
that  have  been  published  within  the  same 
time,  and  yet  you  have  never  even  heard 
the  names  of  those  works. 

"And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  the  Lord 
God  shall  commence  his  work  among  all 
nations,  kindreds,  tongues  and  people  to 
bring  about  the  restoration  of  his  people 
on  the  earth."  Book  of  Mormon,  pages  106, 

The  sign  given  that  the  time  had  come 
when  the  work  of  the  Father  should  com- 
mence to  effect  the  restoration  of  Israel  and 
the  renewing  of  the  covenant  with  them, 
should  be  the  coming  forth  of  this  work 
and  its  publication  to  the  world.  Book  of 
Mormon,  pp.  103-8.  To  this  all  the  proph- 
e°ts  of  the  Bible  who  have  written  concern- 
ing it  testify.  Ezekiel,  in  his  37th  chapter, 
states  emphatically,  as  already  shown,  that 
w.hen  the  record  of  Joseph  should  be  taken 
and  put  with  the  record  of  Judah,  that  then 
should  commence  the  work  that  would  even- 
tuate in  the  gathering  of  Israel.  Isaiah,  in 
his  29th  chapter,  is  specific  upon  this  same 
point,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  record 
should  be  brought  forth  to  the  world.  He 
states  that  a  nation  which  would  be  unto 
him  (God)  "as  Ariel,"  should  have  forts 
raised  against  them,  besieged  and  camped 
against,  and  "Thou  shalt  be  brought  down, 
and  shalt  speak  out  of  the  ground,  and  thy 
speech  shall  be  low  out  of  the  dust ;  and 
thy  voice  shall  be-,  as  one  that  hath  a  famil- 
iar spirit,  out  of  the  ground,  and  thy  speech 
shall  whisper  out  of  the  dust."  Verse  4. 

This  could  only  take  place  by  a  nation's 
history  -being  written  and  hid  up  in  the 
earth,  which  after  the  nation  had  passed 
away  and  should  be  recovered,  and  then  the 
nation  would  speak  through  its  record  out  of 
the  ground.  This  was  to  take  place  when 
God  should  remember  the  covenant  made 
to  the  house  of  Jacob :  and  Jacob's  lace 
was  to  be  no  longer  pale;  but  the  favor  of 
God  and  prosperity  should  be  upon  him. 
Verse  22. 

David  refers  to  the  same  thing,  the  com- 
ing forth  of  the  record  out  of  the  earth, 
and  as  preceding  the  restoration  of  Israel 
in  his  85th  Psalm,  as  follows:  "I  will  hear 
what  God  the  Lord  will  speak,  for  he  will 
speak  peace  to  his  people  and  his  Saints." 
"Mercy  and  truth  are  met  together;  right- 
eousness and  peace  have  kissed  each  other. 
Truth  shall  spring  out  of  the  earth,  and 
righteousness  shall  look  down  from  heaven, 
yea  the  Lord  will  give  that  which  is  good, 
and  our  land  shall  yield  its  increase.  Right- 
eousness shall  go  before  him,  and  shall  set 
us  in  the  way  of  his  steps." 

Here  it  is  shown  that  just  before  Israel  ia 
set  in  the  way  of  God's  steps,  and  the  land 
of  Israel  shall  yield  its  increase,  that  truth 
shall  spring  out  of  the  earth.  And  that 
this  shall  be  a  means  of  setting  them  in  the 
way  of  his  steps."  What  is  this  truth? 
David  says  again  :  "Thy  law  is  the  truth." 
"Thou  art  near,  O  Lord,  and  all  thy  com- 
mandments are  truth."  Psalms  119,  142, 
157.  And  Jesus  says,  "Sanctify  them 


178 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


through  thy  truth,  thy  word  Is  truth." 
John  17:17.  Isaiah  says,  "Let  the  skies 
pour  down  righteousness;  let  the  earth 
open,  and  let  them  bring  forth  salvation." 
45:8. 

Here  it  is  shown  that  a  record  of  a  peo- 
ple should  be  brought  out  of  the  ground ; 
they  should  "whisper  out  of  the  dust," 
just  previous  to  the  laud  of  Israel  yielding 
its  increase.  It  wa«  to  come  at  a  time  when 
men  would  be  "drunken,  but  not  with  wine ; 
stagger,  but  not  with  strong  drink."  Be- 
cause "the  Lord  had  poured  out  upon  them 
the  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  closed  their 
eyes."  They  had  no  prophets  nor  seers. 
All  these  are  thought  to  have  been  "done 
away."  Then  it  is  that  the  "vision  of  all 
is  become  unto  you  as  the  words  of  a  book 
that  is  sealed,  which  men  deliver  to  one 
that  is  learned,  saying,  Read  this,  I  pray 
thee,  and  hesaith,  I  cannot,  for  it  is  sealed." 
Isaiah  29:10,  11.  Now  it  is  well  known  that 
when  the  record  of  Joseph  (or  Book  of  Mor- 
mon), was  brought  to  light,  that  some  of 
the  characters  were  copied  and  sent  to  Prof. 
Anthon  and  Dr.  Mitchell,  of  New  York 
city.  The  message  was  taken  by  Martin 
Harris.  Pearl  of  Great  Price,  page  45. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MARTIN  HARRIS. 
"I  went  to  the  City  of  New  York,  and  presented  the 
characters  which  had  been  transcribed,  with  the  trans- 
lation thereof,  to  Professor  Anthon,  a  gentleman  cele- 
brated for  his  literary  attainments.  Professor  Anthon 
stated  that  the  translation  was  correct,  more  so  than 
any  he  had  before  seen  translated  from  the  Egyptian. 
I  then  showed  him  those  that  were  not  translated,  and 
he  said  that  they  were  Egyptiari.  Chaldaic,  Assyriac 
and  Arabic,  and  he  said  that  they  were  the  true  char- 
acters. He  gave  me  a  certificate  certifying  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Palmyra  that  they  were  true  characters,  and 
that  the  translation  of  such  of  them  as  had  been  trans- 
lated was  also  correct.  I  took  the  certificate  and  put  it 
into  my  pocket,  and  was  just  leaving  the  house  when 
Mr.  Anthon  called  me  back  and  asked  me  how  the 
young  man  found  out  there  were  gold  plates  in  the 
place  where  he  found  them.  I  answered  that  an  angel 
of  God  had  revealed  it  unto  him.  He  then  said  unto 
me,  Let  me  see  the  certificate.  I  accordingly  took  it 
out  of  my  pocket  and  gave  it  to  him,  when  he  took  it 
and  tore  it  to  pieces,  saying  there  was  no  such  thing 
now  as  ministering  of  angels,  and  that  if  I  would  bring 
the  plates  to  him  he  would  translate  them.  I  informed 
him  that  part  of  the  plates  were  sealed,  and  that  I  was 
forbidden  to  bring  them.  He  replied,  I  cannot  read  a 
sealed  book." 

This  statement  of  Mr.  Harris  is  corrobo- 
rated and  confirmed  by  Mr.  Anthon,  show- 
ing that  he  did  make  the  trip  to  New  York, 
and  presented  him  with  the  characters.  In 
the  history  of  the  Mormons,  by  Howe,  who 
wrote  to  Mr.  Anthon  and  claimed  to  get  his 
answer,  page  272  of  his  work,  he  says,  as 
follows:  "  Some  years  ago  a  plain,  appa- 
rently simple-hearted  farmer  " — yes,  that  is 
Mai  tin  Harris — "called  on  me  with  a  note 
from  Dr.  Mitchell  of  our  city,  now  dead, 
requesting  me  to  decipher  if  possible  a  pa- 
per which  the  farmer  would  hand  me,  and 
which  Dr.  M.  confessed  he  had  been  unable 
to  understand." 

Don't  overlook  the  confession  of  Dr. 
Mitchell,  which  is  almost  invariably  left 
out  of  the  letter  of  Prof.  Anthon  by  all  au- 
thors who  wish  to  make  a  case  against  the 
book,  whether  by  foul  or  fair,  means,  al- 
though this  is  the  original  publication  of  it. 

"  When  I  asked  the  person  who  brought  It  how  he 
obtained  the  writing,  he  gave  me,  as  far  as  I  now  recol- 


lect (notice  the  language,  'as  far  as  I  now  recollect') 
the  following  account;  A  'gold  book,'  consisting  of  a 
number  of  plates  of  gold  fastened  together  in  the  >hape 
of  a  book,  by  wires  of  the  same  metal,  which  had  been 
dug  up  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
and  along  with  the  book  an  enormous  pair  of  'gold 
spectacles.'  These  spectacles  were  so  large  that  if  a 
pereon  attempted  to  look  through  them  his  two  eyes 
would  have  to  be  turned  toward  one  of  the  glasses 
merely,  the  spectacles  in  question  being  altogether  too 
large  for  the  human  face.  Whoever  examined  the 
plates  through  the  spectacles  was  enabled  to  not  only 
read  them,  but  understand  their  meaning.  All  this 
knowledge,  however,  was  confined  at  that  time  to  a 
young  man  who  had  the  trunk  containing  the  plates 
and  spectacles  in  his  sole  possession.  He  put  on  the 
spectacles,  or  rather  looked  through  one  of  the  glasses, 
and  deciphered  the  characters  in  the  book,  and  having 
committed  some  of  them  to  paper,  handed  copies  to  a 
person  outside.  This  paper  was  in  fact  a  singular 
scroll.  It  consisted  of  all  kinds  of  crooked  characters, 
disposed  In  columns,  and  had  evidently  been  prepared 
by  some  person  who  had  before  him  at  the  time  a  book 
containing  various  alphabets.  Greek  and  Hebrew  let- 
ters, crosses  and  flourishes,  Roman  letters  inverted,  or 
placed  sideways,  were  ranged  in  perpendicular  col- 
nmns,  and  the  whole  ended  In  a  rude  delineation  of  a 
circle,  divided  into  various  compartments,  decked  with 
various  strange  marks,  and  evidently  copied  after  the 
Mexican  calendar  given  by  Humboldt." 

Thus  the  learned  man  admits  that  he  was 
waited  upon  by  a  "  simple  hearted  farmer," 
who  presented  him  with  the  characters, 
whatever  may  have  been  his  opinion  about 
them,  and  the  learned  man's  statement, 
though  an  attempt  is  made  at  derision,  is  in 
favor  of  the  claims  of  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
and  has  also  been  confirmed  by  the  finding 
of  plates  fifteen  feet  under  ground  in  the 
State  of  Illinois,  in  1843,  with  characters 
resembling  those  described  by  Prof  Anthon . 
These  plates  were  found  by  Mr.  Robert 
Wiley.  They  were  four  inches  in  length, 
and  one  and  three-fourths  inches  wide  at 
the  top  and  two  and  three-fourths  inches 
wide  at  the  bottom  and  covered  with 
"  Hieroglyphics."  A  fac-simile  of  which  is 
here  presented;  ( the  fac-simile  is  shown  to 
the  audience). 

I  now  show  you  a  fac-simile  of  those  plates 
that  were  found  seventeen  years  after  the 
publication  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  with 
characters  similar  to  the  ones  shown  to 
Prof.  Anthon,  and  not  found  by  Latter  Day 
Saints  either — not  found  by  Joseph  Smith 
or  Sidney  Rigdon — and  they  are  now  in  the 
possession  of  scientists.  And  yet  Joseph 
Smith  must  be  called  a  liar  and  a  thief  and 
everything  else  if  he  says  that  he  got  any 
plates,  because,  forsooth,  he  says  at  the 
same  time  that  he  saw  an  angel,  and  there 
are  no  angels  in  this  age  of  the  world  ; — so 
Mr.  Braden  would  have  you  believe. 

Here  it  has  been  shown  that  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  was  literally  fulfilled  so  far  as  the 
characters  being  taken  to  learned  men  are 
concerned,  and  they  not  being  able  t» 
interpret  them,  as  confessed  by  both  parties. 
But  the  book  was  to  be  delivered  "to  him 
that  is  not  learned,  saying,  read  this  I  pray 
thee,  and  he  saith,  I  am  not  learned."  The 
book  was  to  be  delivered  to  the  unlearned 
and  he  was  not  able  to  read  it  by  his  own 
wisdom.  Therefore  the  Lord  said  verse  14, 
"I  will  proceed  to  do  a  marvellous  work 
among  this  people,  even  a  marvellous  work 
and  a  wonder  ;  for  the  wisdom  of  their  wise 
men  shall  perish,  and  the  understanding  of 
their  prudent  men  shall  be  hid." 


THE  BRADUN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


179 


How  was  the  wisdom  of  the  .wise  and 
prudent  to  be  confounded?  By  God  pro- 
ceeding to  do  his  own  work.  He  would  take 
the  illiterate  man  and  cause  him  to  do  that 
which  the  most  learned  and  scholarly 
men  of  the  age  could  not  do.  That 
is,  read  the  book.  Bring  it  to  light. 
For  the  "  dear  were  to  hear  the 
words  of  the  book."  Verse  18.  That  Joseph 
Smith  was  such  an  illiterate  youth,  is  con- 
fessed by  every  one ;  and  himself  and  other 
witnesses  testify  that  he  translated  the 
book.  But  when  was  this  book  to  be  re- 
vealed? In  a  day  when  men  should  deny 
that  such  a  thing  as  a  revelation  from  God 
could  be.  When  people  would  draw  near 
to  the  Lord,  "with  the  mouth,"  and  with 
"their  lips  honor  him,"  but  with  hearts  far 
from  him,  the  same  as  the  Jews  once  acted  in 
the  time  of  Christ.  But  the  fear  of  God 
"would  be  taught  by  the  precepts  of  men." 
A  dead  form,  "lip  service,"  without  any 
heart  in  it,  all  under  the  direction  of  the 
wisdom  of  men  was  to  be  the  spirit  of  the 
time.  Verse  13.  It  was  to  come  forth  just 
before  "  Lebanon  should  be  turned  into  a 
fruitful  field."  Just  before  Palestine  should 
be  restored  from  its  sterility  to  the  receiving 
of  the  early  and  the  latter  rains,  in  order  to 
send  forth  vegetation  for  "  my  people, 
Israel,  for  they  are  at  hand  to  come."  This 
sealed  book,  the  Record  of  Joseph,  the  stick 
of  Ephraim,  was  to  be  brought  out  of  the 
ground,  taken  in  the  hand  of  Ephraim  and 
put  with  the  stick  of  Judah  and  raised  as 
an  "  ensign,"  or  "  standard,"  upon  the  land 
shadowing  with  wings,  just  as  God  should 
commence  the  great  work  among  the  nations 
of  the  earth  for  the  restoration  of  scattered 
Israel  to  Palestine  again.  God  was  to  reveal 
his  secret  to  his  servants,  the  prophets, 
concerning  the  time  when  tnis  work  should 
commence,  for  the  wisdom  of  men  could  not 
divine  the  time.  The  coming  of  the  angel. 
Rev.  14 : 6,  and  the  raising  of  the  Gospel 
standard  to  be  preached  to  every  kindred, 
tongue  and  people,  inaugurated  the  great 
era  declared  by  Paul  to  be  the  "dispensa- 
tion of  the  fullness  of  times."  Ephesians 
1 : 10.  Or  the  dispensation  that  shall  wit- 


ness the  bringing  about  of  these  things 
spoken  by  the  prophets,  and  be  crowned 
with  the  coming  and  glory  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  saints.  This 
last  dispensation  is  the  time  referred  to  by 
Peter  when  he  said,  "The  heavens  must 
retain  the  Son  of  Man,  until  the  time  of  the 
restitution  of  all  things  spoken  by  all  the 
holy  prophets  since  the  world  began." 
Acts.  3.  It  is  the  era  predicted  by  Jesus 
and  Paul  in  which  the  fullness  of  the  Gen- 
tiles would  be  come  in,  and  Jerusalem  should 
cease  to  be  trodden  down.  It  is  the  era  01 
dispensation  in  which  the  angel  would 
restore  the  Gospel  to  be  preached  to  every 
nation,  kindred,  tongue  and  people,  saying 
with  a  loud  voice,  "Fear  God  and  give 
glory  to  him  ;  for  the  hour  of  his  judgment 
is  come."  It  is  the  time  when  "  This  Gospel 
of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the 
world  for  a  witness  to  all  nations,  and  then 
shall  the  end  come,"  as  declared  by  Jesus. 
It  is  the  time  when  the  stick  of  Joseph 
should  be  taken  from  its  resting  place  and 
be  put  with  the  stick  of  Judah,  and  in  the 
hands  of  divinely  commissioned  officers 
raised  as  a  standard  with  authority  from 
God  to  say  to  all  Israel  that  the  day  of 
their  redemption  is  nigh,  and  God  will  re- 
move the  curse  from  their  land  and  remem- 
ber the  covenant  that  he  had  made  that 
they  should  not  cease  to  be  a  nation  before 
him,  forever.  It  is  the  day,  when  the  angel 
would  say,  "Run  and  speak  to  this  young 
man,  saying,  Jerusalem  shall  be  inhabited 
as  towns  without  walls,  for  the  multitude 
of  men  and  cattle  therein  ;  for  I,  saith  the 
Lord,  will  be  unto  her  a  wall  of  fire  round 
about,  and  be  the  glory  in  the  midst  of 
her."  Zach.  2:4. 

There  is  no  work  on  earth  that  answers 
to  these  prophecies  or  can  claim  to  be  a 
fulfillment  of  the  same  as  pointing  out  the 
time,  and  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
work  that  should  reveal  the  dispensation 
of  the  fullness  of  times,  and  commence  tht 
great  work  of  restitution,  but  that  brought 
forth  by  the  young  man,  Joseph  Smith. 

(Timf.rxf.ired.) 


L80 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S   SEVENTEENTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS.  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — The  question  has  often  been 
asked:  Did  Joe  Smith  have  any  plates? 
Some  think  that  Joe  found  some  glyphs, 
like  those  said  to  be  found  in  Kinderhook. 
Ills.,  while  pretending  to  hunt  for  buriea 
money.  Some  think  that  Rigdon  obtained 
some  glyphs  and  furnished  them  to  Joe. 
Some  think  that  Rigdon  or  Joe  had  some 
manufactured,  and  exhibited  them  to  the 
witnesses.  I  assert  positively  that  Joe  nev- 
er had  a  plate,  and  never  sho.wed  one  to 
anybody :  that  Joe  and  his  witnesses  delib- 
erately lied  from  beginning  to  end.  We 
have  proved  that  Joe  was  a  liar  about  his  t 
water-witching  and  money-hunting:  that* 
he  lied  about  his  book  of  Abraham  :  that 
the/ac  simile  of  what  was  on  the  plates  was 
a  wholesale  fraud:  that  he  said  he  had  no 
plates.  Pomeroy  Tucker  tells  us  that  two 
young  men,  Van  Dreuverand  Hussey,  were 
allowed,  by  Joe,  to  look  into  his  box,  and 
see  what  he  said  was  the  Book  of  Plates 
covered  with  a  cloth.  That,  by  a  quick  move- 
ment, Hussey  snatched  off  the  cloth,  and 
found  that  it  covered  only  a  brick.  The 
entire  gang  of  witnesses  had  gone  into  the 
fraud  with  Joe.^'to  make  mo:iey  by  deceiving 
the  world.  They  lied  to  help  carry  out  the 
fraud.  If  Joe  had  ever  had  any  plates  they 
would  have  been  exhibited  most  ostenta- 
tiously to  the  world,  like  the  pretended  fac 
simile,  and  the  papyri  that  it  is  pretended 
were  translated  in  the  Book  of  Abraham. 
Joe  and  his  twelve  confederates  lied.  He 
never  had  anything  but  Rigdon's  manu- 
script which  was  a  revision  of  Spaulding's 
manuscript.  This  he  read  as  he  sat  behind 
the  curtain,  or  handed  portions  of  it  out  at 
other  times. 

I  assert  that  the  entire  gang  engaged  in 
carrying  out  the  fraud,  were  a  pack  of  liars 
on  account  of  their  contradictory  yarns.  I 
defy  my  opponent  to  take  the  stories  of  the 
fourteen  witnesses  separately,  and  select  an 
important  statement  in  the  testimony  of 
any  of  the  fourteen  that  I  caunot  show 
that  it  is  contradicted  by  other  witnesses, 
and  that  in  almost  every  instance  the  wit- 
ness contradicts  the  statement  elsewhere. 

I.  Material  of  the  plates.  We  are  told  they 
»re  "Pure   Gold."    "Gold."  "Looked  like 
fold."    "Were  brass." 

II.  Description  of  the   Book   of  Plates. 
Impostor  Joe  says  they  were  fastened  to- 
gether at  the  back  by  three  rings,  each  ring 
running  through  every  plate,  and  that  a 

Eart  were  sealed.  David  Whitmer  says  they 
ad  been  cut  across  the  middle,  and  the 
half  of  each  plate  next  the  rings  was  solder- 
ed to  the  others.  He  does  not  tell  us 
whether  the  loose  half  was  fastened  to  the 
half  from  which  it  had  been  cut  or  not. 
Martin  Harrris  gave  a  dozen  different  de- 
scriptions. The  eight  witnesses  tell  us 
that  the  leaves  Joe  had  translated  were 


loose,  separated  from  what  he  had  not 
translated.  That  they  hefted,  saw  and 
handled  what  he  had  translated,  and  did 
not  see  the  rest.  S.  H.  Smith  says  the 
whole  i book  was  together,  as  Impostor  Joe 
and  Whitmer  declared  and  he  saw  it  weigh- 
ed. Emma  Smith  says  they  lay  loose  on 
her  table  covered  with  a  cloth,  not  fastened 
together  nor  sealed,  nor  soldered,  and  she 
felt  of  them  in  that  condition. 

III.  Where  were  they  kept  ?  Joe's 
mother  says  he  kept  them  in  a  hollow  tree, 
a  box,  in  a  cooper  shop,  in  the  woods, 
buried  in  the  ground.  Joe  had  them  in  his 
possession  all  the  time  ;  then  again  he  did 
not.  The  angel  brought  to  him  the  entire 
pile  when  he  began  translating,  and  took  it 
away  as  he  ceased,  each  time.  The  angel 
brought  each  piate  as  Joe  began  to  trans- 
late it,  and  took  it  away  as  he  finished  it. 
Joe  had  the  plates  in  the  book  by  him  as 
he  translated ;  he  had  the  plates  lying 
loose  under  a  cloth  ;  he  did  not  have  them 
by  him ;  they  were  in  his  trunk ;  in  the 
woods  ;  in  the  ground ;  in  the  care  of  the 
angel ;  noboby  knew  where.  He  had  them 
and  showed  them  to  the  eight  witnesses  • 
he  did  not  have  them  and  an  angel  had  to 
bring  them  from  heaven,  or  some  other 
place,  and  show  them  to  three  witnesses. 
It  required  a  miracle,  a  wonderful  miracle, 
to  enable  the  three  to  see  them.  The  eight 
saw,  handled  and  hefted,  without  any 
angel  or  miracle.  Joe  could  show  them  as 
he  could  a  pile  of  his  wife's  dinner  plates. 
Emma  Smith  saw  them  covered  with  a 
cloth,  and  felt  of  them  as  she  did  of  her 
tin  pans.  It  was  death  to  look  on  them, 
unless  prepared,  by  miracle  for  the  sight. 
Emma  Smith  saw  them  under  a  cloth,  felt 
of  them.  Whitmer  saw  them  lying  in  his 
father's  field.  Old  Moroni  let  his  (Whit- 
mer's)  mother  have  a  squint  at  them  in  the 
barn.  The  eight  saw,  handled  and  hefted 
them,  like  shingles,  and  nobody  "  hurted." 
When  outsiders  wanted  to  see  the  plates, 
Joe  told  them  the  angel  had  them.  He  only 
had  them  while  translating,  or  he  had  only 
one  plate  at  a  time,  while  translating.  Or 
the  Lord  would  not  let  him  show  them.  Or 
it  was  death  to  look  on  them.  Or  it  required 
a  miracle  to  enable  one  to  see  them.  When 
the  Mormon's  are  lying  and  telling  that 
they  saw  them  and  knew  all  about  them, 
then  Joe  had  them  all  the  time,  they  saw 
them,  and  handled  them,  felt  of  them,  saw 
them  weighed  ;  they  lay  on  the  table  and 
were  handled  like  dinner  plates. 

IV.  Joe  at  first  only  told  of  finding 
plates.  This  was  his  tale  for  months.  Then 
a  breast-plate,  and  interpreters.  His 
mother  says  breast-plate  and  interpreters. 
She  says  the  breast-plate  was  gold,  Joe 
says  brass.  Then  Joe  told  of  breast-plate, 
interpreters,  brass  compass  and  sword. 
The  story  kept  growing  all  the  time.  Had 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


181 


Joe  lived  long  enough  he  would  have  added 
the  entire  twenty-four  articles  mentioned 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  manufactured 
a  perfect  museum  in  addition. 

V.  What  the  three  witnesses  saw.    They 
declare  they  saw  the  plates.    They  men- 
siou   nothing  else  in  their  testimony.    Joe 
in  his  revelation,  fabricated  in  Kirtland  in 
1835,  declares  that  they  shall  see  the  brass 
director,  the  interpreters,  the  breast-plate, 
and  sword.    Whitmer  says  afterwards  they 
saw  all  this  and  piles  of  plates  and  other 
things  besides.    Harris  says  the  sword  was 
gold.    The  Book  of   Mormon  says  it  was 
steel. 

VI.  Whose  interpreters  did  Joe  use?  Joe 
sa>d,  the  interpreters  of  Jared's  brother. 
The  Book  of  Mormon  says  they  were  not  to 
come  forth  until  after  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles.      That    Mormon     had    Mosiah's 
interpreters,   not  Jared's   brother's.    That 
Mormon  buried  Mosiah's  interpreters  years 
before  Moroni   buried  Jew's  plates  and  in 
another  place. 

VII.  Description  of   the  stone  interpre- 
ters.   Granny  Smith  says  they  were  three- 
pointed  diamonds,  set  iu  glass  plates — glass 
at  the  time  of   confusion  of  tongues — the 
plates  set  in  silver  spectacle  bows — spec- 
tacles at  the  Tower  of  Bable.    Harris  and 
others  say  that  they  were  two  cloudy  stones, 
so  large  that  a  man  could  look  through  only 
one,  and  could  look  through  one  with  both 
eyes,  set  in  gold  spectacle  bows,  making  an 
enormous  pair  of  spectacles.    Emma  Smith 
says  it  was  Joe's  peep-stone  that  he  used  in 
peeping  for  treasure.    Her  father  says  the 
same.     Impostor  Joe  told   Willard  Chase 
that  it  was  the  peep-stone  he  stole  from  his 
children. 

VIII.  How  translation  was  done.  Neigh- 
bors declare  that  they  were  told  when  it 
was  going  on,  that  Joe  sat  behind  a  screen, 
a  blanket.    So  Harris  told  Anthon.    So  all 
Mormons  said  at  first.    Emma  Smith  says 
lie  did  not.    He  sat  in  her  kitchen,  at  her 
kitchen    table.     Whitmer    says    that   Joe 
looked  through  one  of  those  opaque  stones 
of  the  big  spectacles,  at  the  plates,  as  they 
lay  before  him.    Emma  Smith  says  that  he 
looked  into  his  peep  stone  placed  in  his  hat. 
Her  father  says   the  same.    She  says  the 
plates  lay  beside  him  on  the  table.     Whit- 
mer says  before  him,  and  he  read  them 
through  the  stone  in  one  of  The  rims  of  the 
big  spectacles.    Others  say  that  he  did  not 
have  the  plates  by  him.    His  father-in-law 
says  that  Joe  said  they  were  were  in  the 
woods,  and  he  peeped  into  his  hat  crown 
through  his  peep  stone.    Some  say  the  an- 
gel gave  him  one  plate  at  a  time,  and  he 
read  it.    Others,  he  had  all  of  the  book. 
Some  ,say  that  as  he  looked  into  his  peep 
stone  the  .Lord  caused  the  translation  to 
appear  one  word  at  a  time.  When  Joe  called 
it  out  it  disappeared,  and  another, word  ap- 
peared.   That  was  the  most  common  yarn. 
Harris  said  Joe. copied  the  characters  him- 
self,   as    he   sat    behind  the  screen,    and 
handed  out  the  leaves  to,  an  outsider.  8.  H, 
Smith  says  he  announced  each  word  as  it 
appeared,  by  miracle,  before  him,  and  the 


scribe  copied  it.  Some  say  he  sat  behind 
a  screen  and  called  out.  Emma  Smith  says 
he  sat  at  her  kitchen  table. 

IX.  Where  the  plates  were  found.    Im- 
postor Joe  said  in  a  hole  where  he  had  dug 
for  treasure ;    sometimes    one,    sometimes 
another.    Finally,  years  afterwards,  he  tells 
us  of  a  strong  stone  vault  around  the  plates. 
Where  is  that  vault  now?    Where  are  those 
stone  slabs?    Did  anyone  ever  see  them,  o: 
tell  of  them   until   twenty  years  after  Joa 
should  have  had  his  first  vision? 

X.  Joe  never   told  of  his  first  vision  in 
1823,  or  until  he  began  to  tell  of  his  second 
vision  in  1827. 

XI.  He  said  at  first  he  went  alone  and  got 
the   plates  and  told  no  yarn  about  an  as- 
sault on  him.    Then  he  said   his  wife  was 
with  him.    That  he    and    his     wife    went 
in  a  wagon,  and  that  he  carried   his  spade 
and  crow-bar  that  he  used  in  digging  for 
treasure.    His  mother  says  he  went  with 
his  wife  in  Mr.  Knight's  wagon.    Then  Jos 
says   he  went  alone,  on  foot,  and  was  as- 
saulted  by  two  ruffians.    One  had  a  club, 
and  he  knocked  the  ruffian  down.     His 
mother  says  he  was  assaulted  some  time  af- 
terwards, as  he  was  changing  the  hiding 
place  of  his  plates,  and  one  of  the  ruffians 
had  a  gun,  and  knocked  Joe  down  with  it, 
and  he  was  crazy  for  some  hours    after   it. 
Orson  Pratt  says  he  used  a  rail  to  pry  off 
the  stone  top.    Joe  said  nothing  at  first 
about  a  stone  cover  or  vault,  and    when 
he  did,  he  said  he  used  a  crow-bar. 

XII.  Size  of  the  plates.     Joe  says  thev 
were  seven  inches  by  eight,  and  the  thick- 
ness of  common  tin.    The  Book  of  Mormon 
covers  545  closely  printed  pages  of  solid 
Minion.    It  would  require    at    least  2,000 
closely  written  pages  of  foolscap  to  contain 
it.    It  would  require  one  page  of  the  plates 
to  each  page  of  the  manuscript,  if  half  oi 
the  plates   were   sealed,  as   Whitmer  de- 
clares ;  or  it  would  require  1,000  plates  if 
none  were  sealed   to  contain  the  Book  of 
Mormon..    That  would  be  a  pile  of  plates 
over  four  feet  high.    If  we  reduce  it   by 
half,  it  would  be  a  pile  over  two  feet  high. 
If  gold,   it  would   weigh  750  pounds.     If 
brass,  about  250.    If  gold,  it  would  be  worth 
$75,000.     Joe  tells  us  that  he  carried  this 
pile  of  plates,  a  sword,  a  monstrous  breast- 
plate,  brass  compass,  the  big  spectacles, 
all  hid  in  his  frock ;  fought  off  two  men, 
one  armed  with  a  club,  knocked  oue  down, 
and  ran  two  miles,  with  a  load  of  more  than 
half  a  ton,  if  plates,  breastplate  and  sword 
were  gold ;   or  more  than  three  hundred 
pounds  if  they  were  brass.    According  to 
his  mother,  Pratt,  Impostor  Joe,  his  wife 
and  other  Mormons,   this  pile   of   plates, 
weighing  hundreds  of  pounds,  worth  nearly 
a  hundred    thousand    dollars,    with    gold 
sword,  a  huge  gold   breastplate,   were  in  a, 
box,  a  trunk,  in  a  hollow  tree,  a  barrel  of 
beans,  in  the  woods.    The  plates  were  in 
the   field,    on    the    table,    lying    around 
loose.      If    they    lay     around,    and    Joe 
could    show    them    so    freely,    why    did 
he  not  hand  them  down  to  others?    Why 
cannot  we  see  them  as  we  can  the  papyrus 


182 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLKY  DEBATE. 


of  the  Book  of  Abraham  ?  Why  not  the 
plates  instead  of  a  scrawl  fabricated  and 
called  a  fac  simile  of  what  was  on  them? 
If  Joe  ever  had  any  plates  they  would  be 
on  exhibition  like  the  papyrus  of  the  Book 
of  Abraham  in  the  fac  simile  scrawl. 

We  repeat  our  assertion  that  Joe  lied 
when  he  said  he  found  any  plates.  His 
ftbsurd  and  grossly  contradictory  stories 
)>rove  it.  The  fact  that  he  never  showed 
them  to  any  one  proves  it.  The  fact  that 
they  are  not  on  exhibition  with  the  papyrus 
of  Abraham  shows  it.  He  did  buy  a  papy- 
rus. It  is  on  exhibition.  The  three  wit- 
nesses deliberately  lied.  Their  character, 
their  interest  in  the  fraud  and  their  con- 
tradictory stories  prove  it.  The  eight  wit- 
nesses lied.  Their  character,  their  in- 
terest in  the  fraud,  and  their  subsequent 
lies  and  contradictory  stories  prove 
it.  Whitmer's  mother  lied  when  she 
said  Moroni  showed  her  the  plates,  or  he 
lied  when  he  said  she  said  so,  as  he  lied 
when  told  of  seeing  the  plates  in  a  field, 
and  told  of  angels  sowing  plaster,  plowing 
land  and  tugging  plates  around.  Emma 
Smith  lied  when  she  said  Joe  translated  in 
her  kitchen,  and  the  plates  lay  on  the  table 
covered  with  a  thin  table-cloth,  and  she 
felt  of  them,  and,  strange  daughter  of  Eve 
that  she  was,  never  peeked  !  Or  those  lie 
who  say  she  told  such  a  story.  Every  wit- 
ness is  contradicted  in  every  statement  by 
other  witnesses,  and  contradicts  his  own 
story  in  almost  every  particular. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  lacks  every  parti- 
cle of  evidence  that  a  book  claiming  inspir- 
ation should  have.  Let  us  contrast  it  with 
the  Bible.  The  Book  of  Genesis  is  com- 
posed of  thirteen  old  books.  In  all  of  the 
oldest  religions  of  the  world  are  found 
fragments  of  these  books.  In  some  instan- 
ces the  books  almost  entire  can  be  quoted 
from  old  religions.  These  fragments  can 
be  traced  to  the  confusion  of  tongues. 
There  is  nothing  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
that  can  be  traced  beyond  Joe  Smith,  Sid- 
ney Bigdon  and  Solomon  Spaulding.  The 
Pentateuch  has  been  attributed  to  Moses  by 
Israelite  literature  for  over  3,000  years.  It 
has  been  attributed  to  Moses  in  Gentile 
literatue  2,500  years.  In  its  names,  places, 
customs  and  description  of  surroundings  it 
interlocks  with  the  history,  surroundings 
and  literatuie  of  the  age  to  which  it  is 
ascribed.  There  is  nothing  of  this  kind  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  Israelite  customs, 
religion,  government,  and  life  were  a  series 
of  monumental  institutions,  based  on  its 
events,  especially  its  supernatural  events. 
Nothing  of  the  kind  do  we  observe  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  The  historical  books, 
Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chroni- 
cles, Ezra,  Nehemiah  recorded  a  history 
that  interlocks  with  surrounding  geography 
history  customs  and  literature.  Nothing  of 
this  kind  is  there  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Its  literature,  Ruth,  Esther,  Job,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Solomon's.  Song, 
refer  to  surrounding  nations,  geography, 
customs,  literature,  and  quote  the  Israelite 
history  and  the  Book  of  Moses.  There  is 


nothing  of  this  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Israelite  history  was  a  wonderful  element 
in  the  world's  history,  prominent  in  it, 
interlocking  with  it  at  every  point.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  is  the  exact  reverse  of 
this. 

Our  Saviour  and  his  apostles  appeared  in 
a  learned,  sceptical,  and  critical  age.  They 
lived  and  worked  in  the  most  open  public 
manner.  Their  work  and  writings  were 
quoted  by  enemies,  discussed,  attacked  by 
enemies,  until  they  can  be  reproduced 
largely  from  them.  The  life  and  course  of 
millions  were  formed  by  them.  They  revo- 
lutionized the  world.  As  a  message  to  the 
world,  they  were  delivered  in  the  world. 
Monumental  institutions  based  on  their 
miracles  have  existed  from  their  day.  The 
Old  and  New  Testament  contain  many 
wonderful  prophecies.  Great  numbers  of 
eye  witnesses  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible 
died  for  their  testimony.  Those  who 
claimed  inspiration  in  the  Bible  wrought 
miracles,  prophesied,  displayed  divine 
knowledge  of  what  unaided  reason  could 
not  know.  Not  a  particle  of  this  can  be 
claimed  for  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Though 
full  of  miracles,  of  such  a  character,  that 
Bible  miracles  are  child's  play,  and  meagre 
in  number,  in  comparison  ;  they  are  all  put 
back  into  the  wilds  of  America,  and  have 
no  more  connection  with  anything  else  in  • 
the  world's  historv,  or  career  of  humanity, 
than  Vernet's  "  Trip  to  the  Moon"  and  its 
description  of  the  wonders  and  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  Moon. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  has  every  feature  of 
a  fraud.  Mohammed,  like  all  impostors, 
avoids  all  contact  with  the  actual  life  of 
men,  in  his  visions.  He  avoids  all  tests. 
He  tells  us  what  he  saw  in  vision,  or  what 
was  revealed  to  him.  No  one  else  knows 
anything  about  it.  So  does  Impostor  Joe. 
Swift  in  his  "Gulliver's  Travels  ;"  Baron 
Munchausen  ;  Moore  in  his  "Utopia,"  Wil- 
kins  in  his  "  Flying  Islanders  :"  all  avoid 
mentioning  a  place,  a  person  or  an  incident 
of  which  anyone  knows  a  particle.  They 
a^oid  contact  with  history,  geography,  lit- 
erature, known  surroundings.  So  does  the 
Bock  of  Mormon.  Spaulding  dropped  th« 
fiction  that  the  aborigines  of  America  wer« 
Romans,  as  dangerous;  because  it  brought 
him  too  near  to  actual  history.  The  absurd 
talethftt  plates  were  hid  by  Divine  direct- 
ion, re  vaaled  by  Divine  revelation,  to  suck 
a  character  as  Joe  Smith,  in  such  surround- 
ings, stamps  it  as  a  fraud.  The  clumsy  ma- 
chinery of  plates,  the  clumsy  contrivance 
of  stone  interpreters,  their  needless  use, 
the  needless  contrivance  of  plates,  when 
each  word  was  caused  to  appear  before  Joe 
by  a  miracle,  stamp  it  as  a  clnmey  fraud. 
Why  did  God  not  give  it  by  inspiration,  as 
he  did  the  Bible  to  its  prophets?  Or  reveal 
it  in  vision  ?  What  need  of  plates  when 
Joe  did  not  look  on  them  at  all  ?  According 
to  some  he  did  not  have  them  in  the  house 
with  him.  What  need  of  stone  interpreters 
when  a  miracle  gav*  the  translation  we  rd 
by  word  ? 

It  is  evident  that  finding  jf  lyj  he  cugr>«t«d 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


183 


the  idea  of  pretending  to  find  plates.  That 
Joe's  lying  tricks,  with  his  stolen  peep  stone, 
suggested  the  ideaof  pretending  to  translate 
the  plates  by  means  of  the  peep  stone, 
which  was  enlarged  into  Jared's  interpre- 
ters, two  great  diamonds,  worth  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  dollars,  set  in  plates  of 
glass,  before  glass  was  dreamed  of,  and 
and  these  set  in  spectacle  bows,  thousands 
of  years  before  such  contrivances  were 
thought  of.  Such  is  Granny  Smith's  yarn. 

The  atmosphere  of  fraud,  money-hunting, 
lying,  and  contradictions  in  which  the 
Book  of  Mormon  began,  stamps  it  as  a  fraud. 
The  trickery  of  concealment  behind  a  cur- 
tain, the  use  of  a  peep  stone,  the  lies  about 
Elates,  that  never  existed,  Joes  lying  ieve- 
itions  to  keep  up  the  cheat — to  keep  his 
dupes  and  confederates  at  work,  the  absurd 
lies  of  Joe,  of  his  mother,  of  his  father,  of 
the  Whitmers,  of  Harris,  show  that  it  was 
a  fraud  of  the  lowest  and  clumsiest  charac- 
ter. Spiritism  resorts  to  cabinets,  dark  cir- 
cles, concealment,  tricks,  and  every  device 
of  fraud.  Impostor  Joe  resor  ted  to  machin- 
ery, concealment,  and  every  device  of  fraud. 
Spiritism  has  its  dark  circle,  its  cabinet. 
Joe  had  his  blanket  screen.  Spiritism  has 
its  tin  horns  to  whisper  through,  its  wri- 
ting in  the  dark,  its  mediums  to  act  through. 
Joe  had  his  needless  plates,  his  needless  in- 
terpreters, and  his  lies  about  the  impossi- 
sibility  of  persons  seeing  plates  or  interpre- 
ters, just  as  spiritism  has  its  lies  about 
spirits  not  being  able  to  manifest  them- 
selves in  the  light.  There  are  just  the  same 
evidences  of  lying,  fraud,  concealment,  self- 
ishness, meanness,  desire  of  gam,  power 
and  gratification  of  lust,  in  Moinaoui&m 
that  there  is  in  every  fraud. 

Was  Joe  Smith  a'prophet?  O<(J  ^R  Dis- 
play superhuman  power?  We  defy  our 
opponent  to  give  a  single  instance.  Did  he 
display  superhuman  knowledge  ?  I  defy 
my  opponent  to  mention  one  prophecy,  one 
idea  that  he  gave  to  the  world,  that  it  did 
not  have.  Did  he  attest  his  work  by  mi- 
racles? Not  a  single  one.  Does  prophecy 
foretell  him  or  his  work?  JNot  in  a  single 
instance.  Does  he  fulfill  prophecy?  Not 
unless  it  be  that  which  dec. ares  that  liars 
and  deceivers  shall  arise  and  deceive  men. 
Was  his  character  such  as  God  would  choose 
to  inaugurate  work,  a  Noah,  an  Abraham, 
a  Moses,  a  Samuel ,  an  Elij.  h,  an  Isaiah,  an 
Ezra,  a  John  the  Baptist,  a  Paul,  a  Luther, 
a  Cal\in,  a  Wesley,  a  Campbell  ?  Did  God 
choose  as  his  last  and  greatest  agont  to  give 
to  the  world  the  last  and  best  dispensation 
a  lazy,  loafing,  lying,  drunken,  stealing, 
swearing,  money-hunting  fraud,  an  igno- 
ramus, a  notorious  liar,  vender  of  absurd 
petty  ghost  stories,  an  obscene  blackguard, 
a  notorious  libertine  ?  Did  Jehovah  through 
such  a  character  give  revelations  about  Joe's 
house,  his  wife's  work,  his  stores,  farms, 
and  every  contemptible  little  emergency  ag 
the"Fullness  of  the  Gospel?"  Was  Jehovah 
the  lackey  of  Joe  Smith  to  keep  him  supplied 
with  scribes,  a  house,  to  transact  his  busi- 
ness, to  run  stores,  shops,  land  offices  arid 
speculations,  printing  houses,  taverns? 


Who  will  da,re  to  blaspheme  the  infinita 
Jehovah  by  suggesting  such  blasphemy? 

While  Smith  waa  living  in  Kirtland,  a 
showman  visited  Kirtland  wih  soms  Egyp- 
tian mummies  There  were  papyrus  rolls 
and  other  articles  with  Egyptian  characters 
on  them,  that  had  been  found  with  the 
mummies.  As  soon  as  he  saw  them  Joe 
was  seized  with  a  spell  of  revelation.  He 
declared  that  one  of  the  mummies  was 
Pharaoh's  daughter.  Joe  had  evidently 
not  learned  that  Pharaoh  was  no  more  a 
proper  name,  than  Czar  is  a  proper  name  of 
a  Bussian  Emperor.  He  announced  that 
one  of  the  papyri  was  written  by  Abraham. 
He  once  gave  as  proof  of  this,  the  statement 
that  papyrus  had  not  been  used  since  Abra- 
ham's days.  Joe  translated  one  of  the 
papyri.  The  showman,  who  knew  as  much 
about  it  as  a  goat,  gave  Joe  a  certificate  that 
he  had  translated  it  correctly.  Joe  gave 
the  showman  a  certificate  that  his  mummies 
were  genuine,  and  the  farce  was  completed, 
when  Showman  Joe  bought  of  the  other 
showman  his  mummies,  and  sent  his  mother 
out  to  exhibit  them  and  lecture  on  them. 
Joe  published,  under  the  title  of  the  "  Book 
of  Aoraham,"  his  pretended  translation  of 
the  papyrus.  Unfortunately  he  published 
with  it  fac-similes  of  certain  cuts  and  paint- 
ings that  he  had  translated.  An  Egyptol- 
ogist got  hold  of  it  and  shows  that  Joe'a 
translation  is  a  humbug  and  not  correct  iu 
a  single  particular.  Joe's  Book  of  Abraham 
is  a  shameless  fraud,  and  so  is  nis  Book  of 
Mormon. 

Mormonism  has  been  can  Mainly  and  con- 
stantly revising  this  work  of  inspiration. 
The  work  was  engraved  on  the  plates  by 
the  Divine  command  of  the  Lord.  Its 
engravers  assure  us  that  they  were  inspired, 
full  of  the  Spirit,  in  this  work  of  engrav- 
ing. The  Lord,  by  miracle,  gave  each 
word  of  the  translation  to  Impostor  Joe. 
Inspired  Joe  announced  each  word  separ- 
ately to  Inspired  Oliver,  who  wrote  each 
word  down.  Inspired  Joe,  Oliver  and 
Hyram  read  the  proofs.  If  ever  a  work 
should  be  perfect  it  should  be  this  Book  of 
Mormon.  But  Mormons  have  been  revis- 
ing it,  in  every  edition,  and  will  continue 
such  revision  until  Mormonism  is  dead. 
On  the  ti^e  page  of  the  Palmyra  edition  we 
have  "  Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  Author  and  Pro- 
prietor," also  "Printed  for  the  author." 
The  revised  edition  reads,  "  Translated  by 
Joseph  Smith,  Jr."  The  copyright  of  the 
Palmyra  edition  says  Joseph  Smith  is 
"  Author  and  Proprietor,"  and  he  signs 
himself  "  Author"  to  the  preface.  He  is 
call  "author  and  proprietor"  in  the  testi- 
mony of  eight  witnesses.  Thus  In  four 
instances,  written  by  Smith  himself,  he  is 
called  "  Author"  in  flat  contradiction  to 
the  assertion  that  he  is  merely  translator. 
This  blunder  of  Inspired  Joe  is  corrected. 
Moroni's  epistle  or  introduction  is,  in  viola- 
tion to  all  printer's  rules,  put  on  the  title 
page.  This  was  done  by  Divine  command 
against  the  protest  of  the  printer.  That 
blunder  of  Inspired  Joe  has  been  corrected. 

In  Moroni's  introduction  we  have  nine 


184 


THE  RRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


words  altered.  Second  line,  Palmyra  edi- 
tion, "which;1  revised  edition,  "who" 
The  Lord  is  learning  grammar.  End  of 
paragraph  1st,  Palmyra  ed.,  "Book  of 
Ether;"  rev.  ed.,  "Gift  of  God."  Second 
paragraph,  1st  line.  Palmyra  ed.,  "which," 
rev.  ed.,  2d  line.,  "who.''  Palmyra  ed.,  4th 
Jine,  "how;"  rev.  ed.,  5th  line,  "what." 
Palmyra  ed.,  7th  line,  "be  fault ,"  rev.  ed., 
9th  line,  "are  faults."  Palmyra  ed  ,  8th 
line,  "it  be  the  mistake;"  rev.  ed.,  9th  line, 
"they  are  the  mistakes."  In  the  testimony 
of  the  three  witnesses,  Palmyra  ed.,  6th 
line,  "his;"  rev.  ed.,  6th  line,  "their."  Pal- 
myra ed.,  7th  line,  "which;"  rev.  ed.,  7th 
line,  "who."  In  the  testimony  of  the  eight 
witnesses,  2d  and  3d  hues.,  "Joseph  Smith, 
Author  and  Proprietor;"  rev.  ed.,  3d  line, 
"Translator."  In  the  Palmyra  edition  is  a 
ridiculous,  blundering  "Preface,"  by  the 
inspired  '•  Author. ,"  The  Mormon  Deity 
had  not  yet  learned  what  had  become  of 
the  116  pages  lost.  He  inspired  Joe  to  tell 
how  he  circumvented  a  trick  nobody  ever 
thought  of  by  substituting  a  translation  of 
the  plates  of  Nephi  for  the  translation  of 
the  plates  of  Lehi,  that  had  been  stolen, 
until  hie  reached  the  point  in  the  plates  of 
Lehi  where  the  stolen  translation  ceased, 
and  then  finishing  with  the  pl»tes  of  Lehi 
and  telling  a  barefaced  lie  in  publishing  the 
whole  as  a  translation  of  the  plates  of  Ne- 
phi.  The  Mormon  Deity  has  learned  that 
Lucy  Harris  burnt  116  pages,  and  that  he 
had  made  a  fool  of  himself  in  his  lying 
trickery,  and  that  lying  blunder  is  revised 
out. 

The  revised  edition  has  an  index  of  eight 
pages,  a  caption  over  the  first  book,  para- 
graphs are  numbered,  and  at  the  top  of 
each  page  the  chapter  is  printed.  The 
Mormon  Deity  is  learning  the  printer's 
trade  as  well  as  grammar.  Chap.  1st,  in 
the  heading,  17th  line,  Palmyra  edition, 
"They  call  the  place;"  rev.  ed.,  "they 
called  the  name  of  the  place."  First  para- 
grah,  10th  line,  Palmyra  ed.,  "  to  be  true ;" 
rev.  ed.,  "is  true."  Seventieth  paragraph, 
6th  line,  Palmyra  ed.,  "is;"  rev.  ed.,  "are." 
Nineteenth  line,  Palmyraed.,  "after that  I;" 
rev.  ed.,  "after  I."  Paragraph  ten,  5th  line, 
Palmyraed.,  "is  over  all  them;"  rev.  ed., 
"  are  over  all  those."  Eleventh  paragraph, 
2d  line,  Palmyra  ed.,  "sayeth;"  rev.  ed., 
"said."  Paragraph  thirteenth,  Palmyra 
ed.f  "and  he  departed;"  rev.  ed.,  "and 
departed."  Palmyra  ed.,  7th  line,  "  which 


was :"  rev,  ed.,  "which  are."  Fourteenth 
paragraph,  2d  line,  Palmyra  ed;  "  beside  a 
river;"  rev.  ed.,  "  by  the  side  of  a  river." 
Palmyra  ed.,  4th  line,  "he  made  ;"  rev.  ed., 
"made."  Fifteenth  paragraph,  9th  line, 
Palmyra  ed.,  "  because  that  he  was  ;"  rev. 
ed.,  "  because  he  was."  Palmyra  ed.,  10th 
line,""that  he  had  led  ;"  rev.  ed.,  "and  had 
led."  Palmyra  ed.,  10th  line,  "and  to  per- 
ish;"  rev.  ed.,  ''to  perish."  Palmyraed., 
20th  line,  "sought;"  rev.  ed.,  "who 
sought."  Paragraph  16th,  5th  line,  Pal- 
myraed., "did  do;"  rev.  ed.,  "do."  We 
have  now  cited  each  change  of  a  word,  with 
other  changes, and  many  important  changes, 
and  we  have  not  finished  the  fourth  pajje. 
If  the  changes  continue  in  the  same  ratio 
throughout  the  book,  they  would  amount 
to  over  5,000.  Think  of  the  Almighty  ro- 
vising  himself  in  any  such  style — the  Al- 
mighty learning  grammar  and  composition. 
Some  of  the  blunders  thus  corrected  would 
be  outrages  on  the  good  sense  of  a  savasje 
Paragraph  40,  Chap.  III.  of  the  Book  of 
Nephi,  Palmyra  ed.,  reads  that  the  Lord 
will  not  suffer  that  the  Gentiles  shall  de- 
stroy the  Nephites  ;  nor  that  the  Gentiles 
remam  forever  "in  that  state  of  awful 
woundedness  which  thou  beholdest."  In 
the  rev.  ed.  it  reads  "  awful  state  of  blind- 
ness." The  sense  is  changed  as  well  as  the 
words,  and  the  blunder  could  not  b«  a 
printer's  mistake,  but  Is  one  of  Sydney's 
spread-eagle  blunders.  Palmyra  ed,,  page 
382,  has  "the  numerority  of  our  forc«s  ;" 
387,  "the  enormity  of  our  numbers;"  260, 
"  if  ye  do  arrest  the  scriptures."  These 
atrocities  that  were  given  word  by  word  to 
Joe  by  the  Mormon  Deity  the  Mormon  Deity 
has  corrected.  The  truth  is  that  the  igviora- 
muses  Rigdon  and  Smith  perpetrated  Uiese 
atrocities,  and  would  not  allow  the  printer 
to  correct  them.  In  their  intercourse  with 
men  they  learned  better,  and  the  assailants 
of  the  book  pointed  them  out,  and  Joe  and 
his  successors  have  revised  them  ou  t  This 
one  fact  that  over  5,000  correction*  have 
been  made  in  grammar,  composition, 
thought  and  teaching  in  the  Book  o!  Mor- 
mon, explodes  the  idea  that  it  was  Britten 
by  inspired  men  and  translated  by  Inspira- 
tion. Couple  with  this  the  fact  that  after 
all  this  revision  the  book  still  r*tnains  a 
monstrosity  in  its  errors,  and  the  claim  of 
inspiration  iu  writing  and  translating  is 
transcendent  blasphemy. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


1S5 


MR.  KELLEY'S   EIGHTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — T  will  first  call  your  atten- 
tion to  one  or  two  things  that  have  been 
mentioned  by  the  negative,  and  then  pro- 
ceed to  finish  my  argument,  and  take  up 
afterwards  and  more  fully  examine  the  ob- 
jections that  have  been  made. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  difficulty  with 
my  opponent  is  that  he  is  not  himself  con- 
ve'rsant  with  what  is  in  the  books.  For  in- 
stance, he  makes  considerable  sport  of  the 
fact  that  glass  should  be  referred  to  so  far 
back  as  the  time  when  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon places  it.  Why,  I  took  up  Dr.  Smith's 
Bible  Dictionary  to-day  and  opened  at  the 
word  glass,  and  he  put  it  at  the  time  of  Jo- 
seph in  Egypt  the  first,  thing,  and  said  that 
doubtless  it  went  back  farther  than  that ; 
but  to  that  time  they  were  positive  having 
discovered  the  means  that  were  used  as  far 
back  as  that  for  blowing  glass.  And  yet, 
Mr.  Braden  is  making  objections  here.  It 
seems  to  me  that  if  he  will  be  a  little  more 
critical  and  inform  himself  better  on  some- 
of  these  points,  it  will  be  more  to  the  satis- 
faction and  edification  of  the  audience. 

Again,  he  estimates  that  a  book  written 
closely,  (after  the  manner  of  the  English 
language,  of  course),  would  comprise  two 
thousand  pages  of  manuscript.  He  forgets 
Jo  tell  you  that  the  plates  did  not 
pretend  to  be  written  in  the  English 
language,  and  that  it  was  a  phonetic  system 
of  writing  used.  Now  to  contain  all  of  the 
books,  all  of  the  words,  that  were  upon  those 
plates  in  the  phonetic  system  that  the  Re- 
porter before  me  is  using,  or  some  other 
phonetic  system,  it  would  not  take  two 
thousand  pages  nor  any  thing  like  two  thou- 
sand pages.  Yet,  that  is  the  way  he  gets 
his  muie's  load.  But  how  about  Spauld- 
ing's  48  sheets,  if  it  would  take  two  thou- 
sand pages?  I  asked  him  to  explain  this 
before  by  showing  the  inconsistency  in  the 
Spaulding  claim,  but  he  has  never  noticed 
it.  I  have  showed  clearly  from  Howe's 
own  words  that  this  48-page  manuscript 
which  came  into  Howe's  hands,  was  the 
"Manuscript  found."  It  purported  to  have 
been  found.  I  did  not  misrepresent  the 
language  of  either  Howe  orHulburt.  Bra- 
den  misrepresented  me — that  is  all  there  is 
to  that.  Another  way  he  gets  his  mule's 
load  is  this  :  He  estimates  a  chunk  of  solid 
gold  to  be  so  much.  Well  were  the  thin  leaves 
ol  the  plates  solid  gold?  And  would  a  book 
of  gold  leaves  weigh  like  solid  gold  ?  In  order 
to  «et  his  250  pounds  he  stretches  every- 
thing. Then  he  starts  out  with  his  mule's 
load,  (250  pounds)  and  wonders  if  there  is 
any  man  in  the  world  that  could  have  done 
as  Joseph  Smith  says  he  did.  At  the  same 
time  he  takes  up  the  Bible  and  reads  where 
Samson  carried  off  the  gates  of  Gaza,  where 
he  slew  his  thousands  and  tens  of  tl»ou- 
«ands,  where  he  leaned  against  the  pillar 


and  the  whole  edifice  .*n  which  they  were 
came  down  ;  and  he  swallows  that  down 
easily,  and  that  is  certainly  a  thousand 
times  bigger  thing  than  the  250  pounds 
load.  But  he  says,  there  has  been  so  many 
stories  told  about  this :  Well  here  is  the 
trouble  with  Mr.  Braden.  He  hunts  up 
these  stories  that  have  been  told  about  how 
they  got  the  plates,  and  how  the  plates 
were  translated  ;  goes  to  all  the  persons  he 
can  find  who  will  tell  stories,  ( but  who  know 
nothing)  instead  of  opening  the  standard 
works  and  accepting  the  statements  of 
those  who  do  know  something  about  it.  I 
could  go  around  and  hunt  up  stories  enough 
that  have  been  told  by  one  people  or  de- 
nomination against  others  in  this  country 
when  there  has  been  a  conflict,  to  sink  any- 
body ;  because  when  a  person  gets  a  little 
miffed  at  somebody,  it  is  quite  natural  to 
begin  to  tell  stories  about  him.  I  remember 
meeting  a  gentleman  a  short  time  ago,  as  I 
was  going  to  Willoughby,  (there  was  also, 
in  the  company  a  Baptist  and  a  Congrega- 
tionalist  Minister,)  who  was  berating  Alex- 
ander Campbell,  and  telling  all  kinds  of 
stories  about  him  ;  and  in  order  to  prove 
that  Campbell  was  bad,  he  said  that  when 
he  went  back  to  Scotland  to  visit  his  own 
home,  they  would  not  even  allow  him  to 
preach  in  their  churches.  I  said  to  them, 
"That  is  no  evidence  to  me  against  Mr. 
Campbell,  for  as  good  men  as  ever  lived 
have  been  traduced  and  prohibited  from 
preaching  to  old  neighbors  when  there  was 
nothing  against  them."  But  lean  find  men 
who  will  tell  stories  about  Ihis  one  and 
about  that  one,  and  often  persons  who  prefer 
to  believe  them  to  the  truth,  and  there  are 
right  here  persons  who  have  told  me  since 
last  evening,  that  some  of  the  parties  to 
whom  he  referred  last  evening  as  knowing 
certain  things  against  the  Saints,  they 
would  not  believe  on  oath  ;  but  is  that  any 
reason  that  I  shall  drag  their  characters  be- 
fore this  audience  and  begin  to  berate  them 
in  that  way  ?  That  is  not  the  manner  to  dis- 
cuss questions  properly.  Neither  is  it  prop- 
er to  even  make  attacks  upon  the  charac- 
ter of  parties  from  stories  ;  because,  as  you 
have  been  shown  time  and  again,  the  facts 
of  history  are  such  as  to  show  that  as  soon 
as  you  assume  that  position  you  destroy 
the  foundation  of  the  Bible  which  is  the 
agreed  standard  of  truth  in  this  contro- 
versy. Now  there  were  and  are  now,  just  as 
many  different  stories  told  with  regard  t« 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  the  way  thafc 
the  Disciples  moved  along  in  their  work  as 
ministers  after  his  resurrection,  as  there  is 
about  the  plates  and  the  angel  that  visited 
Mr.  Smith.  There  were  many  different 
stories  told  about  what  Paul  said  when  he 
was  converted,  and  we  have  two  different 
stories  as  to  some  things  which  occurred 
then  handed  down  in  the  Bible.  And  yet 


186 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


he  wants  one  straight  forward  story  with 
regard  to  the  plates  from  which  the  Book 
of  Mormon  was  translated,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  the  same  evil  power  is  in 
the  world  to  make  stories  to-day  as  in  the 
first  century.  I  could  take  up  the  seventh 
chapter  of  Kings  and  read  to  you  a  story 
from  that  single  ch'apter,  which  is  in  fact 
bigger  than  any  in  any  two  chapters  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  It  states  that  Elisha  died 
and  after  he  was  dead  he  prophesied  to  the 
king  and  got  mad  because  the  king  did 
not  do  to  suit  him.  There  was  more  power 
in  his  bones  after  he  was  dead  than  there 
was  when  he  was  alive,  because  they  let  a 
dead  man  down  into  his  grave,  and  the 
corpse  touched  the  bones  of  Elisha,  and  the 
man  arose  and  stood  upon  his  feet  as  soon 
as  the  bones  of  Elisha  touched  him.  It 
makes  Elisha  out  to  have  died  twice.  Makes 
him  talk  after  he  did  die  to  the  king  who 
came  to  visit  him.  Gives  to  his  dead  bones 
more  power  than  it  did  to  them  while  alive. 
And  yet  we  have  "stories."  That  is  no  ar- 
gument, no  way  to  debate.  The  things 
that  I  cite  are  in  the  standard — the 
Bible.  I  am  yet  with  that.  If  Mr. 
Braden's  style  of  telling  stories  aud 
asserting  is  the  way  that  this  question  is  to 
be  tried,  I  might  as  well  go  away  from  my 
argument  and  the  clear  proofs  that  I  have 
brought,  because  all  the  answer  he  makes 
to  them  is,  why  there  is  not  a  prophecy 
that  says  anything  about  it,  right  in  the 
face  of  the  fact  that  I  have  cited  more  than 
40  prophecies  that  are  directly  in  point,  and 
he  has  not  shown  that  I  have  misapplied  a 
single  one  of  them.  Another  thing:  He 
says  that  David  Whitmer  told  different 
stories.  I  deny  that  he  ever  did.  I  know 
persons  say  that  he  did  tell  different 
stories,  but*  they  are  the  same  kind  of  per- 
sons who  told  different  stories  about  Joseph 
Smith.  They  believed  that  he  was  an  im- 
postor, and  in  order  to  put  it  down  they 
believed  that  anything  that  they  could  do 
against  him  would  be  proper  ;  and  they 
were  ready  to  lie  or  even  steal,  and  willing 
to  hatch  and  tell  stories  to  put  the  impostor 
as  they  called  him  down,  or  to  do  anything 
else  to  put  him  down,  no  difference  how  or 
what  it  was.  I  will  now  read  you  the 
statement  of  David  Whitrner  made  quite  re- 
cently, and  you  will  see  that  the  statement 
that  he  once  denied  his  testimony  is  entire- 
ly false. 

The  statement  that  Oliver  Cowdery  de- 
nied his  testimony  and  he  did  not  confirm 
it  upon  his  deathbed  too,  is  wholly  false. 
The  statement  that  Martin  Harris  had 
denied  his  testimony  at  some  time  was 
false.  Martin  Harris  ever  stood  by  his 
testimony,  and  confirmed  it  the  last  act 
and  speech  of  his  life.  David  Whitmer's 
statement  September  15th,  1882,  to  Wm.  H. 
Kelley,  G.  A.  Blakeslee,  of  Gallen,  Michi- 
gan, and  others  is  as  follows  : 

"  Elder  Whitmer  remarked  that  he  did  not  feel  irmch 
'  like  talking  as  he  had  not  been  feeling  well  for  >ome 
|  time.  He  appeared  feeble.  He  is  now  upwards  of 

seventy-six  y.-ars  of  age,  hflvinir  been  born  January 
'  7th,  1805.  He  is  of  me  lium  height,  and  rather  of  a 
'  ft  slender  build ;  but  this  appearance  may  be  on  ac- 


"  count  of  age  and  recent  illness.  He  has  darldsh 
'  brown  eyes,  and  his  luiir  is  white  and  thin.  Has  a 
'  good  head  and  honest  face.  He  talks  with  ease  and 
'  seemed  at  home  with  every  subject  suggesied;  and 
'  without  an  effort,  seemingly  went  on  to  amplify  upon 
'it,  so  that  we  had  nothing  to  do  but  question,  sug- 
'  gest  and  listen.  His  intellect  is  far  more  vigorous 
'  and  retentive  than  we  expected  to  find.  He  is  care- 
'ful  in  his  speech,  for  he  studies  to  express  himself  ia 
'such  a  way  as  not  to  be  misrepresented.  A  reporter 
'called to  see  him  some  time  ago,  asked  a  few  qnes- 
'  tions  and  went  off  and  published  that  he  had  denied 
'  his  testimony  concerning  the  truth  of  the  Book  of 
'  Mormon.  This  hurt  him  so  that  he  is  very  careful 
1  now  to  have  some  known  friends  present  when  stran- 
'  gers  call  to  see  him.  This  accouuts  for  the  presence 
'  of  others  when  we  were  there." 

Speaking  of  Joseph  Smith  the  Seer,  he 
said,  and  this  is  very  nearly  his  wording: 

"  It  makes  no  difference  what  others  say.  I  know 
"Joseph  Smith  was  a  prophet  of  God,  and  he  trans- 
"  lated  the  Book  of  Mormon  by  the  inspiration  of  Go* 
"  from  the  plates  of  the  Nephites." 

Let  me  say  in  this  connection  that  alt 
these  assertions  that  there  was  a  curtaia 
between  these  parties,  and  that  he  was 
secluded,  are  false  in  all  their  particulars, 
and  the  statements  that  one  told  this  thing 
to  a  certain  one,  and  that  thing  to  a  certain 
one,  are  simply  the  lies  that  were  conjured 
up  against  these  parties  in  New  York  by 
those  who  wished  to  injure  them.  The 
parties  never  told-  any  such  -thing  aa 
that  themselves.  And  yet  that  is  what  we 
"have  before  this  audience.  He  further 
said  : — 

"  Some  people  think  if  they  can  only  make  it  appear 
"  that  Joseph's  life  and  character  were  not  perfect,  and 
"  that  he  had  human  weaknesses,  that  it  would  prove 
"  that  be  was  not  a  prophet,  yet  the  same  persons  wiH 
"  believe  that  Moses  who  killed  the  Egyptian,  and, 
"  David  who  had  Uriah  killed,  and  who  took  a  multi- 
"  tude  of  wives,  and  Solomon  who  was  a  polygamist 
"  aud  idolator ;  and  Peter  who  lied  and  cursed,  ect., 
*'  were  all  prophets,  and  should  be  honored  and  re* 
"spected.  What  the  individual  life  of  Joseph  Smith 
"was  after  he  translated  the  Book  of  Mormon,  bus 
"nothing  to  do  with  the  question  as  to  whether  he 
"  was,  or  was  not  inspired  to  bring  that  book  forth." 

"Do  you  know  anything  against  his 
character?" 

"  I  know  nothing  against  him.  I  have  heard  some- 
"things,  these  I  know  nothing  about.  I  have  nothing 
"  to  say  about  the  character  of  any  one  only  aa  I  know. 
"  It  is  not  my  mission  to  talk  about  the  character  of 
"  any  My  mission  is  to  testify  concerning  the  truth  of 
"  the  coming  forth  of  the  work  of  God." 

•  "  What  kind  of  a  man  was  he  when  yom 
knew  him  personally?" 

"  He  was  a  religious  and  straitforward  man.  He  h«4 
"  to  be ;  for  he  was  illiterate  and  he  could  do  nothing 
"  of  himself.  He  had  to  trust  in  God.  He  could  not 
"  translate  unless  he  was  humble  and  possessed  the 
"  right  feelings  towards  every  one.  To  illustrate  so 
"you  can  see.  One  mdVning  when  he  was  getting 
"ready  to  continue  the  translation,  somethii  g  went 
"  wrong  about  the  house  and  he  was  put  out  about  it. 
'  Something  that  Emma,  his  wife  had  done.  Oliver 
'  and  I  went  up  stairs  and  Joseph  came  up  soon  after 
'  to  continue  the  translation,  but  he  could  not  do 
'  anything.  He  could  not  translate  a  sinule  syllnble. 
'  He  went  down  stairs,  out  into  the  orchard,  and  made 
'  supplication  to  the  Lord ;  was  gone  about  an  hour— 
'came  back  to  the  house,  asked  Emma's  forgivness 
'  and  then  came  upstairs  where  we  were  and  then  the 
'  translation  went  on  all  right.  He  could  do  nothing 
'  save  he  was  humble  and  faithful." 

He  could  do  nothing  save  he  was  humble 
and  faithful — as  reputable  a  man  as  there 
is  in  the  United  States  to-day — David 
Whitmer — as  I  shall  show  you  by  the  state- 
ment of  more  than  twenty-five  witnesses, 
a  Judge  of  the  Courts  of  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri, and  men  living  where  he  lives  ia 
Richmond,  Kay  county,  Mo. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


187 


His  statement  concerning  the  vision 
they  had  of  the  plates  and  the  angel  was  as 
follows : 

"  I  was  plowing  In  the  field  one  morning,  and  Joesph 
and  Oliver  came  along  with  a  revelation,  stating  that 
I  was  to  be  one  of  the  witnesses  to  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. I  got  over  the  fence  and  we  went  out  into  the 
woods,  near  by  and  sat  down  on  a  log  and  talked 
awhile.  We  then  knelt  down  and  prayed.  Joseph 
prayed.  We  then  got  up  and  sat  on  the  log  and  were 
tMlking,  when  all  at  once  a  light  cnme  down  from 
above  us  and  encircled  us  for  quite  a  little  distance 
'  around;  and  the  angel  stood  before  us." 

This  was  in  the  day  time.  No  jugglery, 
no  slight  of  hand  about  this.  Martin  Har- 
ris was  not  present  at  this  time,  and  he  was 
not  present  when  the  other  two  saw  what 
they  declare  here.  Now  he  describes  the 
angel. 

"  He  was  dresied  In  white,  and  spoke  and  called  me 
'by  name,  and  said  :  '  Blessed  is  he  that  keepeth  his 
'  commandments.'  This  is  all  that  I  heard  the  angel 
'  say.  A  table  was  set  beforp  us,  and  on  it  the  records 
'  were  placed.  The  records  of  the  Nephites  from 
'  which  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  translated,  the  brass 
'  plates,  the  ball  of  directors,  the  sword  of  Laban,  and 
'  other  Plates.  While  we  were  viewing  them,  the 
'  voice  of  God  spoke  out  of  heaven  saying  the  book 
'  was  true  and  the  translation  correct." 

I  now  offer  you  the  irrefutable  testimony 
of  David  Whitmer  as  published  in  the 
Chicago  Times  in  the  year  1881,  which  will 
fully  refute  the  false  and  slanderous  stories 
which  so  many  have  sought  to  circulate 
against  him,  and  which  my  opponent  deals 
so  largely  in.  Also  what  the  first  men  of 
the  county  in  which  he  lives  say  about  him. 
It  is  headed  "  A  Proclamation,11  and  reads 
as  follows : 

"  Unto  all  Nations,  Kindred,  Tongues  and  People  unto 
whom  these  presents  shall  come: 

It  having  been  represented  by  one  John  Murphy,  of 
Polo,  Cad  well  county,  Missouri,  that  I  in  a  conversation 
with  him  last  summer,  denied  my  testimony  as  one  of 
the  three  witnesses  to  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

To  the  end,  therefore,  that  he  may  understand  me 
now,  if  he  did  not  then,  and  that  the  world  may  know 
the  truth,  I  wish  now,  standing  as  it  were  in  the  very 
sunset  of  life,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  once  for  all,  to 
make  this  public  statement: 

That  1  have  never  at  any  time  denied  that  testimony 
or  any  part  thereof,  which  has  so  long  since  been  pub- 
lished with  that  book,  as  one  of  the  three  witnesses. 
Those  who  know  me  best,  well  know  that  I  have 
always  adhered  to  that  testimony  And  that  no  man 
may  be  misled  or  doubt  my  present  views  in  regard  to 
the  same,  I  do  again  affirm  the  trut,h  of  all  my  state- 
ments as  then  made  and  published. 

"  He  that  hath  an  ear  to  hear  let  him  hear ;  It  was  no 
delusion!  What  Is  written  is  written,  and  he  that 
readeth  let  him  understand. 

And  that  no  one  may  be  decleved  or  misled  by  this 
statement,  I  wish  here  to  state  that  I  do  not  endorse 
poly  gamy  or  spiritual  wifeism.  It  is  a  great  evil,  shock- 
ing tc  the  moral  sense,  and  the  more  so  because  prac- 
ticed in  ihe  name  of  religion.  It  is  of  man  and  not  of 
God,  and  is  especially  forbidden  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon itself?. 

And  if  any  man  doubt,  should  he  not  carefully  and 
honestly  read  and  understand  the  same,  before  pre- 
suming to  sit  In  judgment  and  condemning  the  light 
which  shlneth  in  darkness,  and  showeth  the  way  of 
eternal  life  as  pointed  out  by  the  unerring  hand  of  God. 

In  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  hath  said  :  "Follow  thou 
me,  for  I  am  the  life,  the  light,  and  the  way,"  I  sub- 
mit this  statement  to  the  world.  God  in  whom  I  trust 
being  my  judge,  as  to  the  sincerity  of  my  motives  and 
the  faith  and  hope  that  is  in  me  of  eternal  life. 

My  sincere  desire  is  that  the  world  may  be  benefited 
by  this  plain  and  simple  statement  of  the  truth. 

.And  nil  the  honor  be  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  is  one  Qod.  Amen. 

DAVID  WHITMEK,  SB. 
RICHMOND,  Mo.,  March  19th,  1881. 

TESTIMONIAL  OF    CITIZENS. 
We.  the    undersigned   citizens   of  Richmond,    Ray 
county,  Missouri,  where  David  Whitmer,  Sr.,  has  re- 


sided since  the  year  1838,  certify  that  we  hare  been 
long  and  intimately  acquainted  with  him  and  know 
him  to  be  a  man  of  the  highest  integrity,  and  of  un- 
doubted truth  and  veracity : 

A   W.  Doniphan. 

G.  W.  Dunn,  Judge  of  the  Fifth  Judicial  Circuit. 

T.  D.   Woodson,  President  of  Ray  Co.   Savings 
Bank. 

J.  T.  Chiid.  Editor  of  Conservator. 

H.  C.  Garner,  Cashier  of  Ray  Co.  Savings  Bank, 

W.  A.  Holman.  County  Treasurer. 

J.  S.  Hughes,  Banker,  Rickmond. 

James  Hughes,  Banker,  Ricomond. 

D.  P.  Whitmer,  Attorney  at  Law. 

Jas.  W.  Black,  Attorney  at  Law. 

L.  C.  Cantwell,  Postmaster,  Richmond. 

George  I.  Wasson,  Mayor. 

Jas.  A.  Davis,  County  Collector. 

C.  J.  Hughes,  Probate  Judge  and  Presiding  Jus- 
tice of  Ray  County  Court. 

George  W.  Trigg,  County  Clerk. 

W.  W.  Mosby,  M.  D. 

Thomas  McGinnis,  ex-Sheriff,  Ray  County. 

J  P.  Queseni  ery.  Merchant. 

W.  R.  Holman,  Furniture  Merchant. 

Louis  Slaughter,  Recorder  of  Deeds. 

Geo.  W.  Buchanan,  M.  D. 

A.  K.  Reyburn. 
Given  at  Richmond,  Mo.,  this  March  19th,  1881." 

Also  the  following  terse  statement  from 
the  Conservator,  a  newspaper  published  in 
the  State  of  Missouri,  and  opposed  to  the 
religion  of  Mr.  Whitmer : 

AN  EXPLANATION. 

"  Elsewhere  we  publish  a  letter  from  David  Whit- 
"  mer,  Sr..  and  old  and  well  known  citizen  of  Ray,  a» 
"well  as  an  indorsement  of  his  standing  as  a  man 
"  signed  by  a  number  of  leading  citizens  of  this  con- 
"munity,  in  reply  to  some  unwarranted  aspersions 
"  made  upon  him. 

"  There  is  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Whitmer,  who  was  one 

"  of  the  three  witnesses  to  the  authenticity  of  the  gold 

"  plates  from  which  he  asserts  that  Joe  Smith  trans- 

"lated  the  Book  of  Mormon  (a  fac-simile  of  the  charac- 

"  ters  he  has  now  in  his  possession  with  the  original 

"  records),  is  firmly  convined  of  its  divine  origin,  and 

"while  he  makes  no  efforts  to  obtrude  his  views  or 

"  beliefs,  he  simply  wants  the  world  to  know  that  so 

"  far  as  he  is  concerned  there  is  no  variableness  or 

'shadow  of  turning.    Having  resided  here  for  nearly 

'  a  half  a  century  it  is  with  no  little  pride  that  he 

'  points  to  his  past  record  with  the  consciousness  that 

'  he  has  done  nothing  derogatory  to  his  character  as  a 

'  citizen  and  a  believer  of  the  son  of  Mary,  to  warrant 

"  such  an  attack  upon  him,  come  from  what  source  it 

•'  may,  and  now  with  the  lillles  of  seventy-five  winters 

* '  crowning  him  like  an  aureole  and  his  pilgrimage  on 

"  earth  well  nigh  ended,  he  reiterates  his  former  state- 

"  ments,  and  will  leave  futurity  to  solve  the  problem 

"  that  he  was  but  a  passing  witness  of  its  fulfillment. 

"  His  attacks  on  the  vileness  that  has  sprung  up  with 

"  the  Utah  Church  must  have  a  salutary  effect  upon 

•'  those  bigamists  who  have  made  adultery  the  corner 

"  stone  in  the  edifice  of  their  belief." — Conservator, 

March  24, 1881. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  now  to  another 
thing  that  has  been  stated  with  regard  to 
the  manuscript  of  this  book,  as  it  was  when 
carried  to  the  printer,  and  it  was  Major 
Gilbert's  statement,  so  Mr.  Braden  said. 
I  snowed  you  what  Major  Gilbert's  state- 
ment was  as  it  was  published  two  years  ago. 
Yesterday  I  telegraphed  to  David  Whit- 
mer, who  has  in  his  possession  the  original 
manuscript  from  which  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon was  printed,  and  asked  him  to  examime 
that  manuscript  and  telegraph  to  me 
whether  in  it  the  proper  names  and  the 
sentences  began  with  capital  letters,  and 
whether  there  was  any  punctuation  marks  j 
and  this  is  his  answer: 

RICHMOND,  Mo.,  FKBRUABY  20. 

"E.  L.  Kelley,  Kirtland,  Ohio:—  There  are  capiia* 
"  letters  beginning  proper  names  and  sentences  and  aM 
"  neceasary  punctuation  marks  in  the  original  manu- 
"  script.  (Signed)  DAVID  WHITMKB." 


188 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


And  yet,  we  have  been  told  here  that  there 
was  no  such  thing,  and  a  witness  cited  to 
prove  taat.  Itmakes  no  difference  how  many 
stories  have  been  told  about  this,  by  one 
person  and  another,  when  a  man  goes  and 
looks  at  the  original  manuscript,  that  was 
in  the  printer's  hands  he  can  certainly  tell 
how  it  was,  unless  the  telegram  gets  crooked 
on  the  way. 

I  had  just  closed  with  Paul's  declaration 
of  the  fullness  of  times  that  is  to  be  ushered 
in,  recorded  in  Ephesians  1 : 10,  or  the  dis- 
pensation that  should  be  crowned  with  the 
coming  and  glory  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
resurrections  of  the  Saints  ;  and  was  sshow- 
Jrjg  by  the  prophets  the  time  of  this  handing 
out  of  God's  word  and  will,  or  dispensation, 
when  my  time  expired.  This  argument  I 
will  novv  conclude. 

The  stick  of  Joseph  was  to  be  brought  to 
light  in  a  day  of  storms  and  tempests,  and 
Hoods  and  fires,  and  wickedness  all  over  the 
land;  and  of  earthquakes  and  famines  and 
disease;  of  distress  and  perplexity;  of 
pride  and  vanity,  of  wickedness  and  de- 
fiance of  God  ;  of  denying  the  principle  and 
the  power  of  true  religion.  A  day  when 
the  sea  and  the  waves  would  roar  and  sweep 
beyond  their  bounds,  and  men's  hearts 
would  fail  them  for  fear,  looking  after  those 
things  coming  on  the  earth. 

Bad  men  may  scoff  and  slander  and  devils 
may  oppose,  but  the  decree  of  God  is,  it  shall 
go  forth,  and  "none  shall  hinder  it/' 

Lebanon  has  already  begun  her  increase, 
and  the  work  described  must  be  in  progress 
some  place,  unless  the  entire  prophecies 
have  failed. 

This  evening  I  will  introduce  the  evidence 
I  referred  to  upon  a  previous  occasion  upon 
the  fact  of  the  return  of  '-'the  early  and 
latter,1'  rains  to  the  country  of  Lebanon, 
showing  that  within  the  last  few  years  the 
event  spoken  of  in  the  prophecies  must  have 
taken  place.  The  "ensign,"  -'the standard," 
''the  stick  of  Joseph,"  "the  everlasting 
gospel,"  the  book  which  would  contain 
this  Gospel  has  been  published  with  the 
message,  "Fear  God  and  give  glory  to  him, 
for  the  hour  of  his  judgment  has  come." 
This  is  the  message  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Is  it  a  bad  thing?  The  following  is  the 
statements  of  good  authorities  upon  the 
condition  of  Palestine : 

"It  (Palestine)  has  the  same  bright  sun  and  un- 
1  clouded  sky,  as  well  as  the  early  and  latter  rain, 
'  which,  however,  is  diminished  in  quantity  owing  to 
'  the  destruction  of  the  trees." — Chambers  Encyclo- 
pedia, vol.  7.  page  11,  Palestine. 

"I  arrived  in  Indiana  a  few  days  since,  from  the 
'  Eastern  continent.  I  stopped  at  Joppa  for  nearly  the 
'  whole  winter.  For  my  part  I  was  well  pleased  with 
'  the  country.  It  is  certainly  a  land  of  most  wonderful 
'fiuitfnlness,  with  a  delightsome  climate,  producing 
'everything,  if  properly  cultivated,  and  from  two  to 
'three  crops  a  year.  They  have  grain,  fruits  and 
'  vegetables  a  1  the  year  round;  in  fact  I  never  was  in 
'  such  a  country  before.  I  have  seen  much  good 
'country  in  Europe  and  America,  but  none  to  compare 
'with  Palestine:  its  fruitfulness  is  uncommon,  and 
'the  climate  is  the  most  delightsome;  even  in  the 
'  winter  I  did  not  see  the  least  sign  of  frost,  and  vege- 
'  tables  of  every  sort  were  growing  in  profusion  in 
'  gardens  It  IP  &fact  thai  the  rain  and  dew  are  restored; 
'  refe"tly  in  185S,  the  former  and  the  latter  rains  were 
'  restored  to  the  astonishment  of  the  n  lives.  The  Jews 
'  have  been  returning  to  the  Holy  Laud  for  some  time 


and  are  increasing,  going  to  their  beloved  Canaan 
from  many  parts  of  Europe.  Asia  and  Africa.  They 
are  making  preparations  to  rebuild  cities  and  (build') 
railroads.  The  fruit  in  Palestine  is  better  than 
in  Europe  and  America  They  have  camels,  mules 
horses,  asses,  cattle,  sheep  and  goats;  but  I  saw  no 
hops.  The  natives  are  generally  friendly."— Louis 
Van  Bnren,  Sen.,  Nov.  Hth.  A.  D.  1867. 

These  are  ample  to  satisfy  the  most 
skeptical  upon  this  point. 

Now  I  will  take  up  the  supposed  objec- 
tions that  he  has  cited  and  examine  them, 
and  should  I  omit  a  single  one  that  you 
wish  still  further  examined  and  considered, 
any  person  in  the  audience  will  do  me  a 
favor  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact,  and  I 
shall  yet  notice  it.  I  have  already  shown 
the  weaknef  s  of  the  criticism  upon  the 
word  "thereof,"  that  he  has  tried  to  make 
against  the  book.  Wherever  it  is  used  it  is 
plain  to  be  understood,  and  the  worst 
criticism  that  can  be  made  against  it,  is 
that  the  brother  of  Jared  in  his  description 
of  the  vessels  and  narration  of  what  he  did, 
does  not  seem  to  have  conformed  to  Mr. 
Braden's  ideas  of  "excellency  of  speech." 
Evidently  the  brother  of  Jared  was  a  true 
mechanic  as  he  As  represented  in  the  book. 
It  don't  make  any  difference  to  Braden 
what  habits  of  talk'ng  or  writing  the 
brother  of  Jared  had,  whether  he  used  a 
superfluous,  modifying  or  other  word  ;  wheH 
it  is  translated  into  English  the  correction 
must  be  made  in  the  original.  Now,  sir, 
I  will  show  the  absurdity  of  this  profound 
criticism  upon  the  translation  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  I  will  ark  you  this  question: 
Had  the  translator  a  right  to  leave  out  a 
word,  put  in  a  word,  o<"  change  anything  in 
the  original,  that  it  might  appear  with 
"excellency  of  speech"  in  English?  Agaia, 
had  it  been  done,  could  :uot  the  translation 
have  been  questioned  wi*h  more  propriety 
and  upon  stronger  grounds,  than  in  its 
present  shape?  And  wo<Ald  not  you  your- 
self have  criticised  it  for  tnat  very  reason  ; 
claiming  that  the  translator,  Smith,  in  order 
to  put  it  in  the  best  English  left  out  some 
superfluous  modifier,  word  ,  phrase  or  sen- 
tence in  the  original,  and  y(  u  did  not  know 
whether  such  modifier,  if  <eft  to  remain, 
would  have  changed  the  seme  or  not.  Will 
you  answer  these  questions"  But  Braden 
says,  that  the  errors  in  transiting  from  the 
Greek,  Hebrew,  etc.,  do  not  appear  in  the 
English  when  translated.  If  the  error  con- 
sists in  omissions,  superflucxis  words  or 
phrases,  why  do  they  not  ?  Vi  ill  he  answer 
this?  Is  it  not  because  the  ti  anslator  into 
English  left  the  same  out  or  a  Med  a  word 
to  make  the  reading  smooth  in  ASnglish  thus 
Anglicizing  it?  Herein  lies  the  difficulty 
of  Bible  translators,  and  we  have  different 
translations.  There  is  not,  neither,  always 
a  corresponding  word  in  the  original  to  the 
English  word  and  vice  versa.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  claims  to  be  a  correct  translation  of 
what  was  written  upon  the  platos ;  not  a 
translation  of  the  writings  of  th«  plates 
corrected.  And  hence  for  Mr.  Bw<l-r»  to 
object  to  the  use  of  the  word  "thereot  "  iu 
the  book,  he  must,  to  be  able  to  ni»  -o  a 
point  against  the  translation,  show  tha  tb<» 
error  was  not  in  the  original  and  thai  *>fe  > 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


189 


word  "thereof,"  as  translated  is  not  the 
English  word  corresponding  to  such  original 
word.  By  a  careful  reading  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  we  readily  see  that  this  is  the 
correct  position.  Where  there  is  given  a 
description  or  narration  of  a  matter  by  the 
writer  in  his  own  language,  we  are  met  with 
common  expressions  upon  which  so  much 
silly  criticism  has  been  made.  But  where 
we  have  the  translation  from  other  records 
as  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  which  the  people 
brought  with  them  to  this  continent,  "  the 
words  of  Jesus,"  etc.,  as  given  in  his  own 
language,  the  errors  do  not  appear,  unless 
per  chance  there  was  an  error  also  in  the 
writing  down  of  the  original.  The  trans- 
lation in  the  Book  of  Mormon  of  Isaiah's 
words,  was  not  from  the  Bible  original 
remember,  but  from  an  original  made  about 
the  same  time  the  Bible  original  was  made  ; 
whether  a  copy,  duplicate,  or  how  taken, 
wearenot  told,  nor  does  it  matter;  certainly 
they  are  sufficiently  distinct  in  translation 
to  show  clearly  to  a  critic  that  one  was  not 
copied  from  the  other.  Take  the  48th 
chapter  of  Isaiah  which  has  been  referred 
to;  if  copied  either  by  Smith  or  Rigdon, 
they  being  the  poor  scholars  that  Braden 
claims  that  they  were,  they  would  have 
most  certainly  copied  the  words  thrown  in 
by  the  translators  of  King  James'  version. 
But  upon  a  comparison  there  is  found  to  be 
a*difference  of  nearly  fifty  words  in  this 
single  chapter,  and  in  the  verse  he  cited 
you  to  prove  the  copying,  there  is  a  differ- 
ence of  eight  words.  Yet  the  language  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon  that  he  claims  was 
•opied  or  changed  by  these  unlearned,  illit- 
erate persons  is  strictly  proper  and  correct 
English. 

I  will  read  a  single  specimen  and  com- 
pare the  two : 

1.  From  the  Bible.     "I  have  not  spoken 
Jo  secret    from  the  beginning ;    from    the 
time  that  it  was,  there  am  I." 

2.  The    Book   of  Mormon.     "I  have  not 
spoken  in  secret  from  the  beginning  ;  from 
the     time   that   it    was   declared    have   I 
spoken." 

Here,  the  idea  sought  to  be  expressed,  is 
krought  out  full  and  clear  ;  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that  something  had  been  changed  or 
expunged  in  the  Bible  original,  or  that  the 
translation  of  the  sentence  was  an  improper 
one. 

The  translation  by  Robert  Lowth,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  London  reads  : 

"  From  the  beginning  I  have  not  spoken 
to  secret :  Before  the  time  when  it  began 
to  exist  I  had  decreed  it." 

The  Bishop  of  London  agrees  with  the 
translation  in  idea  and  sentiment  as  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  And  yet  he  claims  that 
these  "  ignoramuses,"  put  it  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  and  makes  his  objection  upon 
that.  Isaiah  then  was  not  cooied  into  the 
Book  of  Mormon  from  King  James'  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible.  Try  again  Mr.  Braden. 

Why  does  he  object  then  to  the  rendering 
of  the  remainder  of  the  sentence  the  same 
as  it  is  in  King  James'  translation,  since 
those  who  translated  it  believed  they  did 


so  correctly,  and  they  were  doubtless  as 
good,  if  not  better  Hebrew  scholars  than  we 
have  now,  and  especially,  since  the  senti- 
ment is  correct,  and  he  knows  nothing  to 
the  contrary  than  that  it  accords  strictly 
with  the  original  from  which  it  was'  taken. 

Then  he  still  insists  that  I  shall  point  out 
where  Peter,  or  Mark  differed  in  their 
style  in  the  original,  and  did  not  at  all 
times  write  and  speak  correct  Hebrew. 
Let  him  put  in  my  possession  some  Hebrew 
written  by  Peter,  or  Mark,  or  Luke,  and 
then  it  will  be  time  enough  to  make  his 
wise  test. 

The  idea  that  is  thrown  out  to  this 
audience  that  any  book  of  the  Bible  can  be 
traced  away  back  to  the  writer  is  one  that 
cannot  be  maintained,  and  he  knows  that 
very  well.  The  best  that  we  have  is  the 
copies  that  have  been  handed  down,  none 
of  which  extend  back  to  within  a  hundred 
and  fifty  years  of  the  writers.  And  when 
I  quoted  from  the  same  persons,  through 
whom  they  came,  on  the  doctrine  of  "Lay- 
ing on  of  hands"  atiWilber,  Neb.,  the  same 
parties  in  part  who  must  have  copied  the 
manuscripts,  he  denounced  the  men,  and 
would  not  believe  their  statements  in  his- 
tory. 

The  gospels  were  transcribed  by  learned 
men  and  put  in  to  the  Greek,  and  Latin,  and 
in  some  things  changed  in  the  original,  in 
doing  so,  as  I  believe  and  can  prove,  and 
will  in  ^he  proper  place.  Notwithstanding 
this,  scholars  can  still  detect  a  difference  in 
the  writers  in  the  use  of  language,  etc. 

Adam  Clark  in  the  manuscripts  he  was 
able  to  examine  could  detect  the  difference 
in  style  and  language,  and  they  were  the 
copies  which  passed  for  original;  and  Paul, 
though  a  learned  man  says,  "  When  I  came 
unto  you  it  was  not  with  excellency  of 
speech,  or  enticing  words  of  man's  wis- 
dom ;"  and  this  is  enough  to  show  me  that 
the  language,  or  speech,  of  Joseph  Smith 
will  not  condemn  him,  nor  stand  as  a  criti- 
cism against  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Paul  .talked  under  the  power  and  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Uhost  to  those  very  people, 
and  yet  he  says  it  was  not  with  "  excel- 
lency of  speech,"  in  fine  style  after  man's 
wisdom.  Oh  no,  but  brother  Braden  wants 
excellency  of  speech  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
"Not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wis- 
dom," Paul  says.  But  we  must  reject  the 
Book  of  Mormon  if  not  in  that  style  of  lan- 
guage, according  to  Braden. 

Again  it  is  claimed  that  the  errors,  angli- 
cisms  or  idioms  peculiar  to  King  James' 
translation  of  the  Bible  are  copied  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  This  I  deny,  and  will 
prove  to  you  it  is  not  true. 

it  is  claimed  by  the  Book  of  Mormon  that 
they  had  the  writings  of  Moses,  Isaiah,  etc.. 
on  the  brass  plates  which  were  brought 
from  Jerusalem.  If  so,  in  translating  into 
English,  the  same  English  word  might  be 
used  if  correct  in  the  translation  of  th« 
same  as  used  in  the  Bibl->,  providing  the 
two  originals  were  alike.  In  translating 
the  Bible  *•'  re  had  to  be  words  supplied  in 
order  to  make  smooth  English,  wnich  wer» 


190 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


not  in  the  original  language  from  which  the 
translation  was  made.  Any  of  you  taking 
your  Bibles  will  soon  see  what  they  are,  for 
they  are  the  italicised  words.  These  itali- 
cised words  were  supplied  by  the  transla- 
tors intb  the  English,  and  were  not  found 
in  the  original.  Now  in  the  translation  of 
Isaiah,  or  the  words  spoken  by  Jesus  upon 
this  continent,  these  words,  supplied  by  our 
Bible  translators,  are  not  used  by  the  trans- 
lator of  tne  Book  of  Mormon  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  indicate  copying  in  the  least.  I 
have  diligently  compared  chapter  after 
chapter  in  the  Bible  and  Book  of  Mormon, 
and  found  that  such  words  are  very  seldom 
the  same  in  both,  and  when  so,  it  is  in  such 
cases  as  different  scholars  translating  from 
.  the  same  language,  although  not  known  to 
each  other,  would  necessarily  use  the  same. 
Besides,  evidently  the  originals  slightly 
differed.  In  the  comparison  the  proportion 
of  use  of  such  supplied  words  was  forty- 
eight  dissimilar  to  eleven  similar,  and  nearly 
every  one  of  the  eleven  were  the  pronouns 
in  the  first  person,  or  the  present  tense  of 
the  verb  to  be — words  which  would  have 
been  selected  the  same,  by  independent 
translators,  whether  they  lived  as  far  apart 
as  the  continents.  The  test  proves  beyond 
a  doubt  to  the  honest  examiner  that  there 
was  no  copying  unless  done  by  a  person 
thoroughly  conversant  with  both  languages, 
and  then  it  was  not  a  copying  of  the  trans- 
lation. The  scholar  who  will  take  and  dili- 
gently compare  the  words  of  Isaiah  as 
translated  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  with  the 
same  book  in  the  Bible,  must  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  was  no  copying  and 
changing  unless  it  was  done  by  a  person 
who  was  versed  in  both  languages,  and  he 
has  claimed  that  neither  Smith  nor  Rigdon 
were  scholars.  He  must  again  fall  back 
upon  his  pious  Presbyterian  preacher  to 
copy  and  change  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah. 
The  translations  show  they  were  independ- 
ent. And  remember,  the  common  expres- 
sions of  "more  history  part,"  etc.,  do  not 
occur  in  the  translations  of  the  words  of 
Moses,  Isaiah,  or  Jesus,  but  of  the  language 
Moroni  used  when  he  was  copying  the  ac- 
count of  the  history  of  the  Nephites.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  the  difference  in  the  word- 
ing of  the  translation  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon and  the  Bible,  the  teaching  does  not 
differ.  What  scholar  put  it  in  this  elegant 
language?  My  friends,  compare  the  two  for 
yourselves  and  you  will  find  that  I  am  right. 
Then  the  idea  that  there  are  quotations  in 
there  from  Hebrews  and  other  parts  of  the 
New  Testament  before  they  were  given  is 
not  correct.  It  might  be  expected  that  if 
the  same  Holy  Spirit  worked  with  men  and 
spoke  through  them  on  this  continent,  as 
wrought  upon  men  on  the  Eastern,  it  would 
in  all  instances  teach  like  things,  and  in 
many  give  the  exact  words  ;  and  so  he  may 
find  in  scrapping  and  dividing  verses  and ' 
sentences  that  there  are  in  a  few  instances 
those  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  in  the 
Bible,  or  a  line  in  Shakespeare  or  Cowper; 
but  that  proves  nothing.  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament we  often  find  words  and  expres- 


sions that  were  before  used  by  the  philoso- 
phers and  teachers  of  other  nations,  and 
our  infidel  friends  claim  them  to  have  been 
borrowed.  But  does  he  believe  it?  Did 
Jesus  take  the  sentiment,  and  in  great  part 
the  wording  of  the  golden  rule  from  the 
great  Chinese  philosopher  who  lived  and 
wrote  600  years  before  ?  I  think  not.  God 
may  reveal  a  like  thing  or  sentiment  to 
two  different  persons  in  the  world,  and 
does  often,  as  in  the  instances  of  Cornelius 
and  Peter,  and  Paul  and  Ananias,  and  this 
is  a  proof  and  a  sure  test  of  a  correct  claim  to 
inspiration,  instead  of  being  against  it, 
But,  he  says,  actually  they  had  the  English 
word  Bible  before  it  was  in  existence.  But 
how?  Had  he  done  his  duty  in  stating  how, 
I  should  not  have  had  to  refer  to  it  again. 
The  prophet  foresees  what  \vould  be  the 
mind  of  the  people  toward  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  and  makes  the  prediction  that 
when  it  is  brought  to  light  in  the  last  days 
that  its  enemies  would  call  it  a  "Bible;  " 
see  Book  of  Mormon  page  105.  Not  its 
friends,  but  its  enemies— and  how  could 
he  have  seen  otherwise,  were  he  a  true 
prophet?  Could  it  have  been  a  truth  had 
he  said  they  would  call  it  an  almanac,  or  a 
dictionary  ?  Is  not  the  prophecy  a  true  one  ? 
How  did  Smith  know  when  he  was  the 
means  under  God  of  translating  the  plates, 
and  when  the  work  was  to  be  sent  forth 
under  the  name  and  title  of  the  "  Book  of 
Mormon,"  that  the  people  would  change- 
the  title  and  call  it  a  Bible? 

What  becomes  then  of  his  assertions  that 
Isaiah  2,  14,  21,  48,  50,  52,  54,  and  Malachi  3 
were  copied  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  ?  The 
statement  is  entirely  without  foundation, 
and  contrary  to  the  facts,  and  untrue;  and 
he  had  the  means  in  his  hands  of  proving  it 
untrue  if  he  had  only  compared  them  with 
a  view  of  ascertaining  the  truth  of  it,  in- 
stead of  trying  to  find  an  objection. 

But,  he  says,  Matthew  5,  6  and  7  are 
copied.  Why  ?  Because  the  Book  in  giv- 
ing Jesus'  instruction  on  this  continent 
gave  it  the  same  as  it  was  given  upon  the 
other,  and  it  appears  the  same,  with  a  few 
slight  changes  in  the  wording.  But  would 
he  have  Jesus  talk  differently  on  this  con- 
tinent from  what  he  did  on  the  other?  He 
mentions  I  Cor.  13  as  another;  but  this 
does  not  appear  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
nor  does  any  quotation  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  appear  there;  nor  is  there 
a  quotation  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  from 
any  part  of  the  Bible.  There  are  quota- 
tions by  these  writers  from  their  own  writ- 
ings, which,  in  some  instances,  were  the 
same  as  those  in  the  Bible.  And  these 
they  had  as  good  a  right  to  use  as  did  Peter 
or  Paul,  when  they  quoted  from  them. 
The  question  is,  while  in  using  these  like 
words  was  the  sentiment  preserved,  and  is 
it  in  all  things  in  harmony  with  the  teach- 
ings in  the  Bible. 

Here  is  where  the  fallacy  of  his  pretend- 
ed argument  lies,  upon  these  quotations. 
He  jumps  at  the  conclusion  that  God  never 
spoke  to  any  person  except  to  the  Jews  on  the 
other  continent, and  from  that  wrong  conclu* 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


sion  he  makes  the  argumept  that  there  has 
been  copying.  Remember  the  conclusion 
itself  is  in  dispute,  and  under  controversy 
here,  and  he  has  only  wasted  his  time  in 
that  supposable,  logical  argument. 

When  he  shall  have  proven  that  God 
never  spoke  to  anybody  but  the  people 
called  Jews,  on  the  other  continent,  no  one 
will  ask  him  to  take  up  his  valuable  time 
comparing  to  see  if  there  lias  been  copying 
or  quotations  made.  Such  a  course  of  mak- 
ing assertions  without  a  particle  of  evi- 
dence, as  he  has  done,  may  be  argument  to 
Messrs.  HnUnirt  and  Howe,  or  to  some  one 
who  does  not  know,  nor  does  not  want  to 


know  how  to  reason  ;  but  it  will   hardly  do 
for   this    audience.     It  is   to  be   presumed 
that  if  there  was  inspiration  on  this  conti- 
nent, the  same  God  speaking  here  as  upon 
the  other,  and   by   the  same  Spirit,  there 
would  be  like  wordings  and  sentiments  in 
the  co'mmunications  ;  and   it   would    have 
been  a  proof  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  was 
not  inspired  had  it  claimed  to  have  had  the 
same  Holy  Spirit  through  which  its  inspi- 
ration was  committed   as   the   Bible/,   anr" 
there  had   been  found  therein  no  resemb 
lance  in  language,  sentiment  and  prhrasec 
logy. 
(Time  expired.) 


MR.   BRADEN'S  EIGHTEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:— Kelley  gives  the  statement  of 
Joseph  III,  of  what  Emma  Smith  said.  We 
have  Whitmer's  statement.  We  have  Mrs. 
Salisbury  nee  Smith's  statement, in  regard  to 
Rigdon's  presence  at  Smith's  in  New  York. 
Would  it  not  be  well  to  introduce  some  one 
not  interested  in  the  fraud  ?  Give  us  some- 
body besides  Smith's  and  Whitmer's,  for  if 
what  these  two  gangs  tell  of  each  other  be 
true,  as  we  shall  show  by  reading  their  state- 
ments, the  testimony  of  all  the  Smith's  and 
Whitmer's  would  not  establish  a  claim  to 
a  "yaller  dog."  Their  testimony  that  they 
did  not  see  Rigdon,  will  not  set  to  one  side 
the  statements  of  Chase  and  Sanders  that 
they  did.  Mrs.  Salisbury,  to  show  that  she 
had  means  of  knowing  whether  Rigdon 
visited  Smith  or  not,  says  that  Smith  was 
at  his  father's  all  the  time  he  was  translat- 
ing, and  did  the  translating  there.  That  is 
a  he,  if  her  mother,  Joe  himself,  P.  P. 
Pratt,  and  Whitmer  tell  the  truth.  Lucy 
Smith  says  he  went  to  Pennsylvania  in  the 
fall  of  1827  and  before  he  began  his  transla- 
tion, so  say  Pratt  and  Whitmer  ;  Lucy  Smith 
and  Whitmer  says  that  he  went  back  to 
New  York  after  wheatsowing  in  1828,  or  one 
year  afterwards.  Whitmer  says  be  brought 
Smith  to  Whitmer's  father's.  Mrs.  Smith 
says  to  Waterloo,  and  that  Whitmer  lived 
in  Waterloo.  She  says  that  Joe  finished 
the  translation  in  Waterloo  and  showed  the 
plates  to  the  witnesses  there.  Joe  did  not 
translate  a  word  at  his  father's.  He  did  not 
live  there  while  translating,  but  miles  away, 
part  of  the  time  over  one  hundred  miles 
away.  If  Mrs.  Salisbury  lied,  as  we  have 
proved  in  saying  Joe  was  where  he  was  not, 
she  would  lie  in  saying  Rigdou  was  not 
where  he  was. 

Impostor  Joe  gave  Martin  Harris  a  scrawl 
that  he  said  was  a/ac  simile  of  some  of  the 


writing  on  the  plates.  Harris  carried  it  to 
Prof.  Anthon  of  New  York  City.  Prof. 
Anthon  describes  it:  "It  was  indeed  a  sin- 
gular scrawl.  It  consisted  of  all  kinds  of 
crooked  characters,  disposed  in  columns, 
and  had  evidently  been  prepared  by  some 
person  who  had  before  him  at  the  'time,  a 
book  containing  various  alphabets.  Greek 
and  Hebrew  letters,  crosses  and  flourishes, 
Roman  letters  inverted  or  placed  sideways, 
were  arranged  in  perpendicular  columns, 
and  the  whole  ended  in  a  rude  delineation' 
of  a  circle  divided  in  various  compartments, 
decked  with  various  strange  marks,  evi-, 
dently  copied  after  the  Mexican  calendar 
given  by  Hum  bold  t." 

There  used  to  be  in  the  archives  of  the 
church  in  Kirtland  and  Nauvoo,  a  scrawl, 
that  is  now  in  Utah,  pretending  to  be  a  fao 
simile  of  a  couple  of  lines  or  columns  of  the 
writing  on  the  plates.  There  are  68  char- 
acters. Any  one  can  see  by  examining 
them,  that  64  of  them  are  merely  our  alpha- 
bet, our  numerals  and  marks  of  punctua- 
tion varied  a  little,  or  placed  in  unusual 
positions.  If  Joe  lied  in  these  scrawls,  if 
his/ac  simites  were  frauds,  belied  in  regard 
to  the  plates  and  the  Book  of  Mormon.  The 
whole  thing  is  a  fraud. 

In  1830  Smith  and  Rigdon  began  a  trans- 
lation and  correction  of  the  Scriptures.  It 
was  finished  in  1833.  Mormons  say  it  was 
done  by  direct  revelation  of  God.  It  was 
done  by  inspiration.  Every  word  in  il  is 
the  word  of  God,  as  much  as  what  h« en- 
graved on  stone  for  Moses.  It  changes 
King  James'  version  in  thousand  of  places. 
It  adds  phrases,  sentences  and  whole  para- 
graphs to  King  James'  version.  Where  it 
adds  to  king  James'  version,  Mormons 
claim  that  version  was  faulty  in  the  origi- 
rial  text.  Where  it  changes  the  translation 
that  version  is  a  mistranslation.  By  corn- 


«92 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


paring  the  quotations  from  the  Bible  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  with  the  inspired  trans- 
lation, and  King  James'  translation  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  Lord  in  revealing  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  in  scores  of  places,  copied  King 
James' version,  and  did  not  correct  the  errors, 
as  he  did  afterwards  in  the  Inspired  Trans- 
lation. The  Lord  inspired  Joe  to  translate 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  In  it  the  Nepbites 
and  Jaredites,  quote  from  King  James'  ver- 
sion, which  is  erroneous,  if  the  inspired 
translation  be  true.  In  his  speech  to  tne 
Nephites,  our  Savior  quotes  over  thirty  such 
errors  of  King  James'  translation,  if  the  In- 
spired Translation  be  correct.  Yet  my  op- 
ponent has  the  audacity  to  declare  that  the 
Book  of  Mormon  does  not  quote  the  errors 
of  King  James'  translation.  Will  he  ex- 
plain this  ?  The  Inspired  Translation 
changes  names  and  language  in  some  places, 
and  leaves  them  unchanged  in  others. 

In  his  speeches  last  night,  my  opponent 
told  you  that  Jared's  barges,  as  long  as  a 
tree,  and  sharply  pointed  at  each  end,  were 
so  large  that  the  eight  excelled  the  capacity 
the  ark.  If  sharply  pointed,  and  seventy 
or  eighty  feet  long,  they  could  not  have 
been  more  than  ten  or  twelve  feet  wide,  and 
high  in  the  center.  It  would  take  over 
2.000  such  barges  to  equal  the  ark.  The 
preposterous  idea  that  these  idiotically  con- 
structed barges,  were  constructed  like  -ur 
scientific  life-boats,  is  too  ridiculous  for  re- 
futation. Will  my  opponent  tell  us  how 
many  families,  animals  of  all  kinds,  fishes, 
birds,  together  with  food  for  all  for  344  days, 
can  be  put  into  eight  life-boats,  not  more 
than  seventy  feet  long,  and  sharply  pointed 
at  both  ends  ?  How  did  his  eight  barges 
keep  together  for  344  days?  He  took  I/he 
dodge  I  expected  him  to  take?  He  claims 
that  Jared  took  only  domestic  animals  and 
fowls  with  him. 

Why  should  he  taketho  horse,  ass,  sheep, 
hog,  and  cows,  and  oxen,  and  animals  /or 
the  use  of  man,  when  the  country  was  full 
of  them  already?  Had  the  Mormon  Deity, 
when  he  got  over  Into  Asia,  in  his  troubles 
over  Jared's  barges,  and  his  corrections  of 
his  mistakes  in  regard  to  ventilation  and 
light,  forgotten  that  there  were  horses,  cows, 
sheep,  asses,  hogs,  and  all  animals  for 
man's  use  in  America,  and  that  by  miracle 
he  had  changed  a  portion  of  the  cattle  into 
oxen  for  Jared's  use.  If  he  had  not  forgot- 
ten this,  vhy  burden  poor  Jared,  with  pro- 
viding fof.d  for  them,  feeding  them,  and  the 
inconven)  mce  of  the  effluvia  in  his  barges, 
all  needlossly.  for  the  land  was  full  of  them 
before  ho  got  there. 

My  opponent  says  the  Book  of  Mormon 
does  spoak  of  rivers,  lands  and  seas.  Does 
it  give  the  name  of  a  river,  sea,  mountain, 
er  city  that  is  found  in  ancient  geography 
or  describe  them  so  they  can  be  identified? 

The  Bible  says,  as  a  fact,  that  the  speech 
of  all  was  confounded  at  Babel.  The  Book 
of  Morm  >n  says  that  the  speech  of  part  was 
not  confounded.  A  flat  contradiction.  My 
opponent  says  that  the  statements  and 
affidavits  in  Howe  are  m^r»  quotations. 
On  the  contrary,  the  affidavit  nu<l  state- 


ments of  Palmyra  and  Manchester  witnesses 
are  in  the  first  person  and  signed  in  due 
form,  and  not  a  quotation  mark.  The  Con- 
neaut  statements  are  in  full,  in  the  first 
person,  and  signed  by  the  parties.  The 
printer  by  mistake  has  put  quotation  marks 
to  the  statements  of  John  Spaulding,  Martha 
Spaulding  and  Art-emus  Cunningham.  The 
statements  of  the  other  four  have  none.  All 
the  statements  are  in  che  first  person  and 
signed  separately  and  by  the  person  making 
the  statement.  What  does  my  opponent 
hope  to  accomplish  by  such  reckless  mis- 
statements?  My  opponent  gave  us  what 
Joseph  the  Third  says,  his  mother  said. 
Can  not  Mrs.  Irvin  tell  what  her  father 
said  ?  Rev.  Bonsall  tell  what  his  stepfather 
said,  as  well  as  Joseph  the  Third  tell  what 
his  mother  and  stepfather  said  ?  Or  Kelley 
tell  what  Gilbert  orHoweor  Mrs.McKinstry 
said  ? 

A  man  may  be  illiterate  and  a  talker. 
Tecumseh  did  not  know  a  letter,  yet  he  was 
not  only  a  talker  far  better  than  Rigdon, 
bnt  he  was  a  reasoner  which  Rigdon  never 
was.  Rigdon's  letter  to  the  Boston  Journal 
showed,  in  misspelled  words,  grammatical 
blunders,  lack  of  capitals  and  punctuation, 
that  he  was  illiterate.  That  Rigdon  preached 
the  peculiarities  ofMormonism  for  two  or 
more  years  before  he  joined  them  is  notori- 
ous. Darwin  Atwater  mentions  it.  So 
does  Campbell,  Bentley,  Zeb  Rudolph,  John 
Rudolph,  and  A.  B.  Green  and  Dille.  He 
advocated  community  of  goods,  and  espe- 
cially the  idea  that  a  restoration  of  the 
apostolic  church  must  include  spiritual  gifts, 
miracles  and  revelations,  the  pet  hobby  of 
Mormonism.  My  opponent  himself  has 
stated  that  Rigdon  had  a  contest  with 
Campbell  over  these  peculiar  doctrines  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  before  he  joined  the 
Mormons,  nearly  eighteen  months  before 
that  time  if  my  opponent  be  correct  in  the 
time.  These  facts  are  as  notorious  as  that 
Rigdon  was  a  Baptist  preacher,  before  he 
joined  the  Disciples.  My  opponent  under- 
takes toexcuse  the  tomfoolery  of  the  assemb- 
ling of  the  Jaredites,  and  afterwards  of 
Nephites  from  all  over  North  America,  for 
a  Kilkenny  Cat  fight,  so  as  to  leave  plates 
in  the  right  place  for  Imposter  Joe,  by 
reading  about  military  works  found  in 
North  America.  Does  that  prove  that  the 
people  who  built  them  ever  did  such  an 
idiotic  thing  as  Nephites  and  Jaredites 
are  said  to  have  done. 

The  prophesies  that  my  opponent  quoted, 
have  no  more  reference  to  Nephites  in 
America  than  to  New  Zealanders.  His  fan- 
ciful farfetched  supposed  references,  would 
apply  as  well  to  the  man  in  the  moon. 

We  will  now  review  his  archaeological 
argument. 

We  remind  the  reader  that  the  Book  of 
Mormon  consists  of  two  parts. 

I.  An  assumption  of  certain  general  ideas 
common  to  all  lands  and  people.  That  the 
continent  has  been  peopled  in  former  ages 
by  civili/od  peoples.  That  there  have  been 
two  civilizations,  only  two,  for  the  Nephites 
and  Zarahemlites  are  substantially  one. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


193 


The  general  ideas  of  cities,  governments, 
wars,  and  what  all  civilized  people  have 
are  assumed. 

2.  The  part  peculiar  to  the  Book,  that 
one  Jared  led  people  into  America  just  after 
the  confusion  of  tongues.  Their  history, 
cities,  wars,  chiefs,  governments,  customs, 
etc.  My  opponent  has  not  offered  a  scrap 
of  evidence  that  this,  that  is  particular  to 
the  Book  of  Mormon  ia  true,  in  a  single 
particular.  That  Lehi  and  sons  of  Zede- 
tiah  led  two  peoples  out  here  that  united. 
That  the  Lehi  tea  divide  into  two  races. 
The  wars  and  career  of  each.  He  has  not 
brought  forward  one  scintilla  of  evidence 
for  this.  Not  a  ruin,  city,  person  or  inci- 
dent has  one  particle  of  proof.  What  he 
appeals  to  is  common  to  all  men.  What 
needs  proof  he  has  not  touched.  What  th« 
Book  of  Mormon  says  in  general  assump- 
tions can  be  applied  to  ruins  in  Ceylon, 
India  or  Ireland,  or  any  land  where  thera 
are  prehistoric  ruins. 

The  language  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  will 
describe  any  prehistoric  ruins,  as  well  as 
those  in  America. 

We  showed  by  an  appeal  to  Priest  and 
scores  of  witnesses  who  lived  long  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  that  it  was  known 
that  there  were  ruins  of  prehistoric  races  to 
be  found  all  over  North  America.  That  a 
civilized  people  inhabited  the  land  before 
the  Indians.  This  assumption  that  civil- 
ized people  inhabited  tin  continent  before 
the  Indians,  was  an  old  idea,  before  the 
Book  appeared.  We  showed  that  Cortez 
found  a  civilized  people  in  Mexico,  and  that 
the  Aztec  Empire  extended  from  the  Isth- 
mus of  Darien  to  what  now  is  the  South- 
western portion  of  the  United  States.  They 
had  great  cities,  temples,  and  public  build- 
ings. We  have  proved  that  the  Mexicans 
declared  that  their  country  had  beeu  inhab- 
ited by  Aztecs,  who  were  in  possession  when 
Cortez  conquered  it,  by  the  Chicemas,  who 
preceded  the  Aztecs,  and  by  the  Toltecs,  who 
preceded  the  Chicemas,  and  that  the  Tol- 
tecs describe  a  prehistoric  civilization  before 
their  occupation  of  the  land.  That  Pizarro 
found  a  civilized  people  in  Peru,  and  that 
the  civilization  of  the  Inras  had  been  pre- 
ceded by  other  civilizations,  some  of  which 
are  prehistoric.  All  this  was  known 
to  educated  men  hundreds  of  years  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  All  this  Spaulding 
knew.  It  suggested  the  assumptions  of  hi* 
romance. 

We  have  proved  that  Cortez  conquered 
Yucatan  ;  that  it  was  inhabited  by  a  civil- 
ized people,  with  gr«>at  cities  ;  that  his  com- 
panions and  other  Spaniards,  such  as  Diaz 
and  Herrera,  describe  great  cities  that  were 
inhabited  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  of 
Yucatan  ;  that  educated  men  who  had  read 
the  history  of  the  conquest  of  Mexico  and 
Peru  knew  these  facts;  that  Spaulding 
knew  them.  He  had  his  people  come  to 
America  from  Southwestern  Asia,  by  sea. 
He  had  them  land  at  the  Isthmus  of  Darien, 
which  he  called  the  laud. of  Zarahemla. 
This  the  witnesses  prove.  We  have  proved 
that  all  that  ray  opponent  can  cite  in  the 


Book  of  Mormon,  as  sustained  byresearch,  is 
just  what  the  witnesses  say  Spaulding  knew 
and  put  into  his  romance.  The  witnesses 
are  not  witnesses  that  manufactured  their 
evidence,  as  was  the  case  with  Mrs.  Salis- 
bury and  the  witnesses  of  my  opponent,  or 
th-ey  would  have  claimed  to  know  more 
than  they  did.  They  repudiate  the  relig- 
ious portion  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  an 
addition  to  Spaulding'g  romance.  They  do 
not  mention  the  Jaredite  portion ;  but  one 
mentions  the  Zarahemlite  portion.  They 
do  not  exaggerate  their  recollection  of  the 
historic  part  of  the  Nephite  portion.  If 
ever  there  were  cautious,  conscientious 
witnesses  they  are. 

This  explodes  all  his  archaeological  read- 
ing. He  has  sustained  those  general  as- 
sumptions of  the  Book  of  Mormon  that  are 
common  to  all  civilized  people  that  need  no 
proof,  certain  facts  that  were  well  known 
.  before  the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared.  But 
he  has  not  furnished  one  particle  ot  proof 
for  those  things  that  need  proof — the  his- 
tory, the  historic  statements  in  reference  to 
persons,  places,  battles,  etc.  If  necessary 
we  could  show,  as  Mr.  Ward  of  Denver  did 
in  his  controversy  with  Joseph  III,  that 
American  archaeology  flatly  contradicts 
many  statements  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
but  it  is  not  needed.  My  opponent  tries  to 
deny  that  the  absurd  statement  of  arming 
children  is  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  On 
page  531  we  are  told  "All  that  were  on  the 
face  of  the  land  were  gathered  into  two 
armies,"  not  a  soul  left  behind,  and  it  adds, 
"both  men,  women  and  children  being 
armed  with  weapons  of  war,  having  shields, 
breastplates  and  headplates,  and  being 
clothed  after  the  manner  of  war,  they  did 
march  forth  against  one  another  to  battle." 
If  that  does  not  declare  that  children 
were  armed  with  headplates,  breastplates, 
shields  and  weapons  of  war,  and  went  out 
to  battle,  language  cannot  make  such  a 
statement.  It  is  idotic  nonsense,  but 
that  is  just  what  the  Book  of  Mormon 

Utters. 

My  opponent  made  a  poor  out  in  howling 
over  the  objection  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, in  quoting  the  Bible,  quotes  King 
James'  version,  the  only  one  Rigdon — who 
interpolated  the  religious  portion  into  the 
romance  of  Spaulding — knew  That  it  pun 
into  the  mouths  of  Nephites  who  lived  2,000 
years  before  King  James'  translators,  the 
brogue,  the  errors  of  King  James'  transla- 
tors. We  give  two  instances,  one  from  Cor. 
13-5.  King  James'  translators  interpolatt<<l 
"easily."  The  Book  of  Mormon  does  th- 
same.  Again,  in  Isaiah  16-7,  it  quotes  t*>* 
blunder  of  King  James'  translators,  ana 
says  "The  Lord  and  his  Spirit  hath  sent 
me,"  instead  of  "the  Lord  hath  sent  me  and 
his  Spirit."  Instead  of  quoting  only  read- 
ings of  the  original,  that  were  in  existence 
before  A.  D.  400,  when  Moroni  buried  the 
plates,  it  quotes  readings  found  in  King 
James'  translation,  that  have  come  into 
existence  since  Moroni's  day.  It  quote» 
the  punctuation  of  King  James'  version. 
Not  only  so  but  it  quotes  the  misquotation* 


194 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


that  were  common  In  Rigdon's  day,  Chap- 
ter 5,  paragraph  26,  lines  33  to  36,  we  have 
"fiery  flying  serpent."  The  serpents  refer- 
red to  were  "flying."  The  "fiery"  is  a 
popular  misquotation,  Page  540  we  have 
"bonds  of  iniquity,"  instead  of  "bond  of 
iniquity."  Another  universal  misquota- 
tion. We  have  "sins  of  the  world"  instead 
of  "sin  of  the  world."  These  expressions 
are  quoted  as  Scripture.  They  are  not. 
Doubtless  it  was  the  fact  that  he  had  heard 
them  quoted  as  Scripture  and  thought  they 
were,  that  led  Rigdon  to  quote  from  Shakes- 
peare's Hamlet,  "from  whence  no  traveller 
can  return,"  and  from  Pope's  Essay  on 
Man,  "look  through  nature  up  to  nature's 
God."  This  quotation  of  the  errors  of  King 
James'  version,  in  original,  in  translating, 
in  punctuation,  its  obsolete  grammar,  its 
obsolete  words,  its  obsolete  style,  proves 
that  Rigdon  used  that,  because  he  knew  no 
other.  Why  did  not  the  Lord  use  some 
other  version,  especially  where  they  are 
correct  and  the  version  of  King  James  is 
not?  Why  did  not  he  correct  that  version? 
Why  did  he  use  an  erroneous  version,  in 
this  fullness  of  the  gospel,  and  then  correct 
its  errors  afterwards,  in  the  Inspired  Trans- 
lation? Why  did  he  not  give  the  correct  ver- 
sion in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Why  corrupt 
it  with  errors?  The  fact  that  the  Book  of 
Mormon  contains  perversions  of  the  Bible 
common  in  Rigdon's  days  shows  that  it 
belongs  to  that  time.  I  did  not  urge  that 
the  language  should  be  perfect  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  but  I  urged  that  the  Lord 
would  not  dole  out  word  by  word  such 
atrocities  as  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. Since  the  Lord,  by  miracle  gave  it. 
word  by  word,  Joe's  illiteracy  could  affect 
it  no  more  than  a  telephone  or  an  echo 
can  put  blunders  into  what  it  utters. 
The  illiteracy  of  Joe  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it.  If  there  are  blunders  the  Mormon 
Diety  made  th.em. 

My  opponent,  with  a  fatuity  that  is  mi- 
raculous, tells  us  that  language  changes, 
and  that  what  is  correct  in  one  generation  is 
incorrect  in  another.  That  is  true,  and  his 
Mormon  Deity  in  giving  a  revelation  does 
not  use  a  language  that  is  correct  in  the 
time  of  the  translation,  but  goes  back  and 
uses  language  of  two  hundred  years  before 
that  time,  that  has  become  grosslv  incor- 
rect, and  exaggerated  and  caricatures  into 
a  monstrous  burlesque,  those  errors.  Why 
did  not  the  Lord  use  what  was  correct 
when  he  made  the  translation?  Why  did 
he  use  what  had  become  grossly  incorrect? 
The  reason  is  evident,  Spaluding  and  Rig- 
don wanted  to  imitate  the  Hebrew  idiom. 
They  were  so  ignorant  that  they  did  not 
know  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  peculi- 
arities of  the  Bible  were  the  brogue  of  the 
translators,  and  they  inserted  into  their 
fraud  and  into  the  mouths  of  Israelites,  in 
America,  the  brogue  of  the  English  of  King 
James'  translators,  hundreds  of  years 
before  there  was  any  English  language. 
We  have  proved  that  the  Lord  has  been 
improving  his  grammar,  has  corrected 
thousands  of  errors.  Why  did  he  not  make 


it  right  at  first?  My  opponent  can  not  see 
the  difference  between  Rigdon's  blunders 
in  English?  Joe's  blunders  in  English  and 
errors  in  the  original.  I  do  not  think  the 
Nephites  made  blunders  in  English. 

The  blunt  Greek  of  Peter,  the  blunt 
Hebrew  of  Amos  are  not  full  of  atrocities 
in  grammar  and  composition.  Let  us  have 
a  list  of  such  atrocities  in  the  Hebrew  0.1 
the  Greek  of  the  Bible.  Bunyan  wrote  a 
clear,  simple  style,  but  it  is  free  from  gram- 
matical atrocities,  and  atrocities  in  compo- 
sition. His  style  is  a  model  for  simplicity, 
purity  and  accuracy.  All  these  excuses 
are  utterly  bootless.  These  features  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  show  that  it  is  an  attempt 
of  an  ignoramus,  to  imitate  the  Hebrew 
idioms  of  the  Bible,  who  blunderingly  car- 
icatured the  brogue  of  King  James'  transla- 
tion, as  Simon  Pure  Hebraisms.  There 
are  one  or  two  contradictions  of  the  Bible 
that  we  will  give.  The  Book  of  Mormon 
claims  to  be  the  "  fulness  of  the  Gospel." 
The  Bible  says  "  Christ  came  in  the  fulness 
of  the  times.  That  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head dwelt  in  Christ  bodily.  All  authority 
in  heaven  and  earth  was  his.  The  church 
contains  the  fullness  of  him  that  fills 
all  in  all.  The  church  is  perfected  to  the 
fullness  of  the  stature  of  Christ.  Christ 
gave  to  the  apostles  all  things  that  pertain 
to  life  and  Godliness  "  The  Book  of 
Mormon  claims  to  be  the  fullness  of  the 
Gospel,  and  to  be  added  to  what  the 
apostles  had.  It  is  a  flat  contradiction  of 
God's  word.  Mormons  claim  revelations, 
visions,  prophesy  now.  Daniel  ix.  "Seventy 
weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people, 
and  upon  thy  holy  city,  to  finish  the  trans- 
gression, to  make  an  end  of  sins,  to  make 
reconciliation  for  iniquity,  to  being  in  ever- 
lasting righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  the 
vision  of  the  phrophecy,  and  to  anoint  the 
most  holy. 

<l  Know  therefore  from  the  going  forth 
of  the  decree  to  restore  Jerusalem,  etc." 
Cyrus  issued  a  decree,  but  said  nothing  of 
rebuilding  the  city.  Darius  Hystaspes 
issued  a  decree,  but  not  concerning  rebuild- 
ing the  city.  Artaxerxes  Longimauus 
issued  a  decree  but  said  nothing  about  re- 
building Jerusalem.  In  the  twentieth 
year  of  another  Artaxerxes  a  decree  to 
rebuild  Jerusalem  was  issued.  From  the 
one  who  was  high  priest  when  the  work 
was  done,  we  learn  it  was  in  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes  Miiemon.  The  twentieth  year 
of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon  was  B.  C.  385.  490 
years  Daniel's  seventy  periods  of  seven  years 
minus  385,  leaves  A.  D.  105,  as  the  time  when 
the  vision  and  prophecy  was  to  be  sealed  or 
revelations  were  to  cease.  The  last  one  to 
whom  one  apostle  had  imparted  these  gifts 
died,  and  prophecy,  visions,  revelations 
ceased.  We  have  not  noticed  the  infidel 
attack  of  my  opponent  on  the  Bible  for  I 
am  examining  Mormonism,  not  defending 
Christianity.  I  want  his  infidelity  to  be 
stereotyped  in  the  debate,  and  let  it,  like 
the  fly  in  the  ointment,  send  out  its  stink- 
ing odor.  The  book  will  be  read  by 
preachers  all  over  the  United  States.  They 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


195 


will  see  the  infidelity  of  Mormonism,  that 
tries  to  drag  Christianity  to  its  vile  level, 
when  it  cannot  rise  to  the  level  of  Christi- 
anity. If  my  opponent  dares  to  affirm,  in  a 
separate  debate,  his  assaults  on  the  Bible, 
I  will  defend  it,  and  expose  his  infidel 
attacks,  in  all  their  shallowness,  and  his 
*'ostility  to  the  Bible. 

We  will  now  notice  some  of  the  pettifog- 
ging of  my  opponent's  last  speech.  He 
insults  the  intelligence  of  the  audience, 
v'hen  he  assumes  that  his  talk  about  the 
omission  of  words  will  so  befog  their  minds 
that  they  will  loose  eight  of  the  gross 
grammatical  blunders  that  we  exposed. 
Reading  pages  does  not  remove  the  blander. 
"  Th-e  Lord  spake  unto  my  father,  yea  even 
in  a  dream,  andsayeth  unto  him."  "  Lord" 
in  the  third  person  is  made  nominative  to 
"  sayeth"  iu  the  second  person  and 
"spake"  in  the  past  tense  is  joined  to  "  say- 
eth" in  the  present  tense.  "Stabbed  by 
his  brother  by  a  garb  of  secrecy"  his 
brother  stabbed  him  by  a  garb  of  secrecy. 
What  a  hole  it  must  have  made  in  him. 
With  my  manuscript  before  him,  he  delib- 
erately falsified  my  quotations.  My  Manu- 
script does  quote  it  "  I  ought  not  to  harrow 
up  in  my  desires  the  firm  decrees  of  a  just 
God."  Omitting  ''I  ought  not"  does  not  cause 
the  sentence  to  talk  balderhash.  The  fustian 
is  in  the  words  "Harro\v  up  in  my  desires 
the  firm  decrees  of  a  just  God."  He  finds 
that  "  arrest"  is  used  in  the  sense  of 
"  check"  or  "  stop."  Will  he  show  how  it 
can  have  that  meaning  in  the  sentence  "  If 
ye  do  arrest  the  scriptures."  Sydney  did 
not  know  the  difference  between  arrest  and 
wrest,  the  word  he  wanted  to  use.  We 
need  follow  his  twaddle  no  further.  He 
finds  in  the  older  books  of  the  Bible  ideas 
that  resemble  the  palpable  quotations  from 
the  New  Testament  and  quotations  from 
modern  authors  that  we  have  exposed. 
Unfortunately  for  him,  it  is  not  ideas  that 
resemble  each  other,  that  we  cited,  but 
quotations  of  entire  sentences  verbatim — 
the  exact  words. 

He  admits  that  quotations  from  the  Bible 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  are  free  from  the 
atrocities  in  speech,  that  occur  in  other  por- 
tions of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

That  proves  the  truth  of  our  assertion 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon,  aside  from  what 
it  steals  from  the  Bible,  is  an  awkward 
attempt  to  imitate  the  Bible.  Kelley's 
assumption  thatRigdon  could  not  adapt  his 
fraud  to  meet  the  objections  that  the  Disci- 
ples had  urged  against  additional  revela- 
tions, is  ridiculous.  The  fact  that  what  the 
Disciples  said  to  Rigdon  in  refusing  to 
accept  his  teaching,  is  bitterly  assailed  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  proves  that  Rigdon 
wrote  it.  When  one  remembers  that  I  have 
cited  over  five  hundred  quotations  from  the 


New  Testament  found  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, scores  of  verses  and  even  whole  para- 
graphs and  chapters  verbatim,  Kelley's 
denial  that  there  are  any  quotations  is 
colossal  in  its  impudence.  He  coolly  asks 
me  "Do  you  know  that  they  are  not  quota- 
tions from  Israelite  books,  older  than  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  that  the  Nephites  had?" 
As  well  ask  me  "Do  you  know  that  they  are 
not  quotations  from  books  on  the  dog  star 
Sirius  ?  "  We  find  the  language  in  the 
New  Testament  alone.  That  proves  that 
the  Book  of  Mormon  was  written  by  one 
who  quoted  them  from  theNew  Testament, 
and,  of  course,  after  the  New  Testament 
was  written.  Did  Lehi,  alias  Rigdon,  quote 
from  "Whence  no  traveller  returns"  from 
an  edition  of  £-hakespeare,  in  the  hands  of 
the  Nephites?  Did  a  Nephite  quote 
"Through  nature  up  to  nature's  God"  from 
an  edition  of  Pope's  "Essay  on  Man,"  in  the 
bands  of  the  Nephites?  Did  Nephites  quote 
Rigdon 's  baptismal  formula,  his  revival 
expressions? 

He  staggers  fearfully  under  the  charge 
that  the  revisions,  that  the  Mormon  Deity 
has  made  of  himself,  as  seen  by  comparing 
the  first  and  last  editions  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  average  nearly  seven  to  a  page, 
and  over  5,000  in  the  aggregate,  seventeen 
corrections  being  made  on  one  page.  He  gab- 
bles weakly  about  printers'  mistakes.  J.  H. 
Gilbert,  who  set  up  every  word  of  the  book 
and  who  is  one  of  the  best  compositors 
in  the  country  and  a  man  of  superior  literary 
and  critical  ability,  did  not  insert  blunders 
of  whole  lines,  omit  whole  lines.  He  did 
not  change  sentences  so  as  to  entirely  reverse 
their  meaning.  The  Mormon  Deity  inspired 
Mormon  and  Moroni  to  write,  doled  out  to 
Smith  word  for  word,  the  translation,  gave 
Cowdery  a  divine  gift  to  write,  and  the 

S roofs  were  read  by  the  inspired  Joe  and 
liver,  and  then  the  Mormon  Deity  had  to 
revise  himself,  omitting  lines,  inserting 
lines,  reversing  the  meaning,  make  seven- 
teen changes  on  a  page,  seven  on  the 
average  on  a  page  and  over  five  thousand 
in  the  aggregate  It  is  disgusting  for  my 
opponent  to  call  on  me  to  prove  that 
the  atrocities  in  speech  were  not  on  the 
plates.  It  is  like  calling  on  me  to  prove 
that  the  telephone  is  not  the  author  of 
blunders  in  a  message,  it  carries.  Will  he 
prove  there  were  any  plates?  When  he 
presents  the  plates  and  shows  that  these 
blunders  were  on  them,  we  will  notice  such 
talk. 

Even  then,  if  we  found  on  the  plates 
hundreds  of  quotations  verbatim  from  '..ne 
New  Testament  and  modern  authors,  thous- 
ands of  gross  blunders,  we  would  be  com- 
pelled to  conclude  that  the  plates  had  their 
origin  with  some  such  modern  ignoramus  as 
Smith  or  Rigdou. 


196 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  NINETEENTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:  I  call  your  attention  to  a 
statement  that  was  made  by  my  opponent 
to  the  effect  that  I  had  stated  in  the  debate 
at  Wilber  that  some  eighteen  months  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared,  Sidney  Rig- 
don  and  Alexander  Campbell  had  a  passage 
at  arms  over  the  religion  of  the  Mormons. 
I  stated  no  such  thing.  The  gentleman  is 
entirely  mistaken.  What  I  gave  to  the  au- 
dience upon  that,  I  read  from  their  own 
book,  "The  History  of  Discipleism  on  the 
"Western  Reserve."  I  will  read  it  to  you. 
Instead  of  being  eighteen  months  before,  it 
was  a  passage  at  arms  between  them,  as  this 
says,  two  and  one-half  months  before,  just 
as  I  read  it  at  Wilber. 

What  answer  will  Mr.  Braden  have  to 
this  misrepresentation  of  what  was  said, 
when  it  was  said,  and  also  who  said  it,  at 
Wilber?  The  statement  is  as  follows,  p.  209: 

"The  discomfiture  he  experienced  at  the 
hands  of  Mr.  Campbell,  at  Austintown, 
when  seeking  to  introduce  his  common 

groperty  scheme,  turned  him  away  morti- 
ed,  chagrined  and  alienated.  This  was 
only  two  and  one-half  months  before  he  re- 
ceived, in  peace,  the  messengers  of  delu- 
sion." 

The  idea  is  carried  here  in  their  own  his- 
tory that  Rigdon  joined  the  Saints  two  and 
a  half  months  after  this  affair  at  Austin- 
town  because  he  got  a  back-set  from  Camp- 
bell and  was  mad.  This  alienated  him. 
Well,  if  this  did  it,  clearly  then  it  was  not 
because  Rigdon  was  in  any  way  mixed  in 
with  our  faith  before.  This  was  only  two 
and  a  half  months  before  he  "received,  in 
peace,  the  messengers  of  delusion." — Carnp- 
uellite  testimony. 

Remember  that  they  were  not  In  contro- 
versy over  any  principle  of  what  he  calls  the 
Mormon  faith.  There  is  no  community  plan 
or  common  property  plan  in  the  faith  of  the 
Latter  Day  Saints,  nor  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. That  only  exists  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  could  not,  or  did  not  wish  to  under- 
stand our  faith.  It  is  not  only  not  accord- 
ing to  the  faith  of  the  church,  but  is  con- 
trary to  its  principles  and  the  faith  as  the 
church  believed  in  1830.  You  will  have  to 
change  again,  Mr.  Braden,  upon  that,  and 
find  something  else  from  which  to  make  out 
your  case. 

Last  evening  when  I  closed,  I  was  expos- 
ing the  fallacy  of  his  reasoning  in  trying  to 
make  an  argument  on  the  assumption  that 
quotations  from  the  Bible  are  contained  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  There  is  no  such 
thing  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  but  if  there 
was  such,  he  could  not  make  use  of  it  as  an 
argument  until  after  he  had  established  the 
proposition  that  God  had  not  also  spoken  to 
the  people  on  this  continent,  because  that 
is  the  question  in  this  controversy.  If  He 
did  speak  to  them,  the  presumption  must 


be  that  the  instruction  would  be  much  the 
same  as  upon  the  other,  and  it  could  appear 
without  any  copying. 

In  the  translation  of  the  prophecies  of 
Malaohi,  Isaiah,  etc.,  and  the  account  given 
of  the  instructions  of  Jesus  to  the  people 
upon  this  continent,  there  is  such  a  differ- 
ence in  the  general  use  of  the  anglicisms. 
as  I  have  before  shown,  as  to  place  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a  doubt  the  fact  that  these 
were  not  copied.  It  was  either  done  by  in- 
spiration, as-  claimed,  or  by  persons  ac- 
quainted with  both  languages.  But  he  per- 
sists that  because  of  the  general  wording  of 
the  sentiment,  even  if  expressed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  it  must  convict  the  work 
of  plagiarism.  The  objection  is  on  a  par 
with  his  argument  associating  the  Corinth 
ian  Church  with  "Mormons,  Spiritualists 
and  negroes"  in  order  to  try  to  burlesque  the 
church  because  of  its  spiritual  gifts.  "They 
are  persons  subject  to  low  manifestations  of 
the  spirit,"  he  says.  He  admits,  then,  that 
these  gifts  exist  with  persons  in  this  age, 
viz:  Mormons,  Spiritualists  and  negroes. 
Where  is  his  argument,  then,  confining 
them  to  the  first  century?  I  have  found  a 
lower  spiritual  manifestation  than  this,  it 
seems — tnat  of  no  manifestation  at  all. 
That  is  where  the  Disciple  Church  comes  in. 
They  do  not  claim  any  at  all ;  and  it  ia 
lower,  certainly,  than  the  Corinthian  saints. 
But,  my  friends,  we  are  in  good  company— 
the  company  of  Jesus  and  all  the  apostles 
and  prophets  and  prophetesses  of  Christian- 
ity ;  and  I  thought  when  he  so  absurdly 
divided  up  the  spirit  the  other  night  into 
the  miraculous,  the  indwelling,  the  sealing 
and  the  resurrecting  powers,  and  then  face- 
tiously tried  to  put  the  saints  on  a  par  with 
Baalam's  ass  because  it  spoke  with  the 
miraculous,  as  he  said,  that  he  as  much 
lowered  the  standard  of  Jesus,  Peter  and 
Paul,  as  he  did  that  of  the  Latter  Day 
Saints  ;  for  they,  too,  had  this  miraculous 
power;  and  Paul  says,  "I  speak  with 
tongues  more  than  you  all." 

Mr.  Braden  seems  to  get  into  a  comer 
upon  every  position  he  takes.  The  only 
hope  he  now  has,  however,  is  to  try  to 
make  so  many  objections  that  I  shall  not 
have  time  to  take  them  up  and  examine 
them  at  all.  True,  a  man  can  make  a  run- 
ning fight,  and  throw  dust  and  dirt  in  his 
style  for  a  time,  but  this  will  all  wash  off 
if  the  investigator  will  only  permit  the  ap- 
plication of  a  little  pure  water. 

But  he  is  wrong  again — should  I  take 
up  by  item  and  examine  these  pages  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  which  he  claims  are  quo- 
tations. Let  me  now  candidly  consider 
them :  He  reads  a  passage  from  the  Book 
of  Mormon  and  says,  "A  quotation  from 
Shakespeare's  Hamlet,  before  written;" 
but  how  does  he  know?  This  is  on  a  par 
with  this  continual  asserting,  without  any 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


197 


proof.  Why  did  he  not  say  that  Bhakes- 
peare  took  it  from  Job,  who  wrote  3,000 
years  before  Shakespeare's  time,  and  in 
whose  book  the  same  thought  and  wording 
in  great  part  occurs.  "  Before  I  go  whence 
I  shall  uot  return,  even  to  the  laud  of  dark- 
ness and  the  shadow  of  death."  And 
again;  "Man  goeth  to  his  long  home." 
Job  10  :  21  and  16  :  22.  The  wording  in 
2STephi  and  Shakespeare  are  not  the  same, 
nor  more  alike  than  the  Bible  and  Shakes- 
peare, or  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the 
Bible.  This  shows  conclusively  that  Mr. 
Braden  did  not  know  what  he  was  talking 
about  when  he  charged  the  plagiarism. 
He  had  to  follow  John  Hyde's  criticism 
made  thirty  years  ago,  however. 

Another;  "  Shepherd  hath  called  and  art 
calling."  Book  of  Mormon,  page  223.  He 
left  out  seven  words  in  this  one  sentence  in 
order  to  make  it  read  badly.  He  quotes 
again:  Stabbed  by  a  garb  of  secerecy," 
Book  of  Mormon,  page  402.  "Oh!  what  a 
stab,"  he  exclaims.  Yes,  but  the  stab  is 
not  as  bad,  after  all,  as  the  perversion  by 
Braden.  The  true  reading  is,  "Stabbed  by 
his  brother  by  a  garb  of  secrecy."  How  do 
you  like  such  grand  arguments  thrown  into 
your  faces,  my  friends,  by  this  Reverend 
gentleman?  Why  did  you,  Mr.  Braden, 
leave  the  words  ''by  his  brother"  out?  Was 
it  to  deceive? 

Again:  "They  buried  their  weapons  of 
peace."  Page  272.  He  left  out  the  explana- 
tion, "or  they  buried  the  weapons  of  war 
for  peace."  Again,  "No  afflictions  save 
swallowed  up  in  joy."  Pa.ge  298.  It  reads, 
"He  also  gave  them  strength  that  they 
should  suffer  no  manner  of  affliction,  save 
it  were  swallowed  up  in  the  joy  of  Christ." 
Do  you  say  it  is  contrary  to  Christian  expe- 
rience, when  rightly  read?  "I  ought  not  to 
harrow  up  in  my  desires  the  firm  decrees  of 
a  just  God."  Page  288.  No,  nor  should 
Mr.  Braden  harrow  up  in  his  desires  such  a 
strong  disposition  to  misquote  these  men. 

Again  he  says :  "Episcopalians  preach 
from  high  pulpits  and  have  liturgies." 
Read  the  text,  my  friends,  and  you  will  find 
he  has  put  in  all  of  this.  "Episcopalians," 
"pulpits,"  "after  their  style"  and  "litur- 
gies." Who  could  not  find  objections  after 
this  style  of  argument?  It  is  too  weak  for 
a  ten  year  old  boy.  Again,  on  page  322  he 
says :  "An  inspired  prophet  scalps  his  en- 
emy, just  like  any  other  'big  injun  who  likes 
heap  much  scalp.'  "  Yes,  just  like  big  In- 
dian Braden  misrepresented  it.  It  reads  : 
"As  [Zerahemnah]  raised  his  sword 
[against  Moroni]  behold  one  of  Moroni's 
soldiers  smote  it,  even  to  the  earth  ;  and  he 
[the  soldier]  smote  Zerahemnah  that  he  took 
off  his  scalp  and  it  fell  to  the  earth." 
What  have  you  to  say  to  this? 

Again,  he  charges  imitation  of  incidents, 
and  cites  the  deliverance  of  .the  three  He- 
brews from  the  furnace  as  being  played  in 
the  book  ;  but  an  examination  shows  that 
the  cases  are  not  so  similar  as  to  indicate 
any  imitation  or  copying  whatever.  The 
entire  history  of  the  two  is  dissimilar. 

Thus,  I  might  go  through  the  entire  list 


exposing  the  spurlousness  of  the  criticisms; 
but  shall  I  so  waste  my  time?  Are  you  ed- 
ified by  criticisms  that  will,  In  no  way  bear 
examination?  You,  doubtless,  wish  him 
to  give  such,  that,  hereafter,  you  will  be 
able  to  give  a  reason  for  not  believing  in  the 
teachings  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  when 
questioned  upon  it,  do  you  not?  Not  to 
have  something  put  into  your  minds  jthat 
will  make  you  look  ridiculous  in  the  eyes 
of  a  person  posted,  if  you  should  give  it  for 
a  reason. 

He  again  takes  up  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  gets  off  this :  "For  do  we  not 
read  that  God  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day 
and  forever,  and  in  him  there  is  no  variable- 
ness, neither  shadow  of  turning."  "Yes," 
he  says,  "weread  it  in  the  New  Testament;" 
and  then  he  tries  to  make  you  believe  the 
writer  (Moimon)  was  quoting  from  that. 
Had  he  turned  to  Alma  5 :  3 ;  2  Nephi,  12:  7; 
Nephi  11:1;  Mosiah  1 :  8  he  would  have 
seen  that  it  was  here  where  the  writer  read 
it,  and  not  from  the  New  Testament.  He 
argues  that  because  the  expression  is  sim- 
ilar to  that  in  the  Bible  it  must  have  been 
taken  from  it.  This  is  not  correct.  In  the 
Veda,  which  bears  a  date  1,200  years  before 
Christ,  we  read,  "O  God  have  mercy!  give 
me  my  daily  bread!"  Rig- Veda  6:37. 
Did  Jesus  steal  it  when  he  put  it  in  the 
Lord's  prayer?  Take  another.  (Rig- Veda 
9:  113,  8)  "Where  life  is  free,  in  the  third 
heaven  of  heavens,  where  the  worlds  are 
radiant,  there  make  me  immortal."  Did 
Paul  steal  this  idea  to  get  material  for  his 
Corinthian  letter  ?  According  to  Braden 's 
way  of  reasoning  he  must  have  done  so.  Of 
the  ancient  Zend-Avesta,Dr.Haug  remarks: 
"The  Zorpastrian  religion  exhibits  a  very 
close  affinity,  or  rather  identity  with  sever- 
al important  doctrines  of  the  Mosaic  relig- 
ion and  Christianity."  Chips  from  a  Ger- 
man workshop,  page  125. 

He  objects  to  the  use  of  the  word  Christ 
and  Christian  over  here  before  the  birth  of 
the  Savior.  Eusebius  Eccl.  His.,  page  21, 
22,  says:  "The  very  name  Jesus,  as  also 
that  of  Christ,  was  honored  by  the  pious 
prophets  of  old.  *  *  *  Moses  attaches 
the  name  of  our  Savior,  Jesus  Christ ;  *  * 
the  prophets  that  lived  subsequently  to 
these  times,  also  plainly  announced  Christ 
before  by  name."  Paul  says:  "Moseses- 
teemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  rich- 
es than  the  treasures  of  Egypt." 

It  may  be  the  Campbellite  idea,  that 
Christ  was  not  known  at  all  and  not  doing 
anything  for  humanity  till  he  was  born  in 
Judea,  and  that  he  was  not  in  the  Church ; 
but  it  is  not  Bible.  It  was  Rigdon's  idea, 
however,  until  his  conversion  to  "the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  in  the  year 
1830 ;  and,  therefore,  he  could  not  have  put 
the  reverse  of  it  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
"Without  this  ( this  same  Jesus)  there  was 
not  anything  made  that  was  made."  "He 
was  as  a  lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world."  He  began  his  work  for  man 
that  early.  "Was  in  the  Church  in  the 
wilderness."  He  had  a  Church  under 
Moses  and  was  there.  He  was  preached  to 


198 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Abraham  and  Noah,  and  was  known  of 
Enoch,  for  his  is .  "the  only  name  under 
heaven  whereby  man  can  be  saved,"  and 
Enoch  was  saved,  saved  through  the  name 
of  Christ!  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am," 
said  Jesus.  "And  they  did  all  drink  of 
that  spiritual  rock,  which  rock  was  Christ," 
Bays  Paul. 

These  are  the  teachings  of  the  Bible; 
they  are  also  the  sentiments  taught  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  They  are  not  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Campbellites,  nor  were  they 
ever  such  ;  nor  of  Sidney  Rigdon  till  after 
his  conversion  in  1830.  Rigdon  therefore, 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  getting  up  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  or  its  publication. 
He  was  as  distant  from  that  scene  as  Braden 
himself.  He  tries  to  make  a  point  against 
the  work  because  Mormon  said  that  he 
did  not  know  what  change  was  effected  in 
the  three  disciples  who  should  remain  and 
not  die.  Yet  he  says  :  "Christ  said  they 
should  remain  'mortal.' "  Christ  said  no 
such  thing.  He  said :  "Ye  shall  never 
endure  the  pains  of  death."  Then,  there  was 
to  be  some  change  wrought  in  them.  This 
was  done  when  afterwards  Jesus  touched 
them  ;  and  Moroni,  referring  to  this  change 
said  that  he  did  not  know  whether  they 
were  "mortal  or  immortal,"  (he  knew  they 
could  not  die),  without,  in  the  least  refer- 
ring to  the  grand  clothing  upon  and 
"abundant  entrance"  which  would  super- 
abound  over  this  change  in  the  time  when 
Christ  would  come  in  his  Kingdom  and 
glory,  and  all  should  be  changed  like  unto 
him.  He  next  misrepresents  the  record  on 

E.  137,  Book  of  Mormon  ,in  making  Mosiah  and 
is  people  meet  Coriantumr,  whom  he  says 
must  have  been,  at  least,  500  years  old. 
The  record  makes  the  people  of  Muluk  and 
Corianturar  meet,  and  not  the  Nephites  and 
Coriantumr ;  and  these  Mulukites  came 
out  from  Jerusalem  near  the  time  of  Lehi, 
and  landed  on  that  part  of  the  continent 
and  are,  several  hundred  years  afterward, 
found  by  the  Nephites  ;  and  Mosiah  gets 
and  reads  the  record  of  Coriantumr  instead 
of  meeting  the  man.  In  the  late  writings 
of  explorers  they  have  found  the  word 
"Muluc"  right  here  where  the  Book  of 
Mormon  located  these  people.  See  North 
Americans  of  Antiquity  by  Short,  pp.  436 
and  438. 

Why  did  he  pervert  it  in  order  to  take 
my  time  up  with  an  explanation  ? 

Again,  "What  is  the  use?"  he  says,  "of 
the  Jaredites  bringing  over  the  animals 
when  they  found  them  here?"  That  is 
another  misrepresentation  of  the  record.  It 
was  the  people  of  Lehi  and  Muluk,  who 
came  near  two  thousand  years  after,  who 
found  the  animals  already  here;  these 
animals  having  been  before  brought  by  the 
Jaredites ;  but  which  were  found  by 
another  people,  and  they  found  them  with- 
out care  on  the  continent,  as  stated  by  Jere- 
miah in  the  49th  chapter  of  his  prophecy. 

He  would  like  to  dodge  the  irrefutable 
proof  of  Jaredites'  account  of  bringing  the 
animals  first  to  the  continent,  4,000  years 
ago,  as  the  book  sets  out ;  and  this,  because 


I  have  so  fully  corroborated  by  science  that 
it  was  done. 

Again  he  says:  "There  were  two  nations 
spread  over  the  en  tire  continent  at  the  same 
time,  and  yet  they  knew  nothing  of  each 
other."  The  record  gives  the  particular 
parts  of  the  continent  on  which  those 
nations  existed,  and  shows  directly  contrary 
to  Braden's  statement,  giving  particularly 
an  account  and  description  of  the  terri- 
tory that  divided  these  peoples,  (The  Neph- 
ites and  Mulukites),  and  shows  why  they  did 
not  discover  each  other  sooner.  Yet,  he 
wants  me  to  give  my  reason  of  how  they 
could  have  remained  so  long  without  the 
knowledge  of  each  other.  Does  he  expect 
me  to  give  a  different  reason  to  that  stated 
in  the  book  itself?  That  is  amole,  full  and 
satisfactory.  If  not,  why  did  he  not  attack 
the  reason  given  instead  of  mis-staling  the 
history? 

Again,  he  tries  to  show  that  Moroni  wrote 
47  pages  of  the  book  after  he  had  no  plates 
upon  which  to  write.  Turning  to  page  494 
of  the  book  I  find  the  objection  is 
not  found  in  the  book,  but  only 
in  Mr.  Braden's  crooked  reading.  Moroni 
says  :  "Behold  my  father  hath  made  this 
record,  [account  of  the  history  and  destruc- 
tion of  the  people,]  and  he  hath  written  the 
intent  thereof;  and  behold  I  would  write  it 
also  [the  same  account]  if  I  had  room  upon 
the  plates,  but  I  have  not,  and  ore  I  have 
none,  for  I  am  alone."  This  is  the  plain 
statement  which  he  tries  to  twist.  Not 
that  he  had  no  plates  to  write  upon,  but 
"no  room  upon  the  plates,"  for  that  account. 
He  then  writes  the  things  for  which  he  had 
room.  Can  you  see  the  point  now,  Mr.  Hra- 
den  ?  If  not  I  will  take  to  rubbing  them  in 
a  little. 

He  goes  back  to  the  barges  and  says  it 
would  take  2,000  boats  with  sharp  points  to 
hold  as  much  as  the  ark.  Who,  except 
himself,  said  they  had  sharp  points?  The 
book  says  they  were  peaked.  Does  it  say 
they  were  peaked  after  the  manner  of  the 
torpedo  boat,  or  after  the  style  of  the  Great 
Eastern,  that  would  of  itself,  doubtless, 
hold  as  much  as  the  ark  ?  Will  he  say  that 
the  ark  was  not  peaked?  Here  is  a  fair 
sample  of  his  reasoning: — If  the  cubit  spo- 
ken of  in  the  description  of  the  ark  was  the 
same  as  the  sacred  cubit,  (which  he  admits 
he  does  not  know),  then  the  ark  was  so  long 
and  would  hold  so  much.  Just  so,  Mr. 
Braden.  Now  let  me  apply  your  mode  of 
reasoning  to  the  other  side.  If  the  tree 
which  these  boats  were.likened  to  in  length 
was  as  long  as  some  of  our  trees,  and  the 
animals  which  went  in  at  the  door  as  large 
as  some  of  our  animals,  and  the  boat  build- 
ed  in  proportion  to  the  length,  which  is  to 
be  presumed.— then  the  eight  vessels  that 
brought  the  Jaredites  here  would  equal  the 
probable  capacity  of  at  least  two  arks.  Is 
not  this  fairly  his  style?  This  profound 
logic  reminds  me  of  his  wise  interpretation 
of  Mark  16.  Here  it  is  verbatim: — "Go  ye 
(Who?  The  eleven  ?)  Preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature"  (Who  preach  ?  The  eleven?) 
"He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,"  (by 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


199 


•whom?  The  eleven?)  shall  be  saved  ;  and 
these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe  ; 
{Believe  what  ?  The  preaching  of  the  elev- 
en?) Anybody  else?  No.  Nobody  but 
the  eleven."  What  about  following  the  be- 
liever in  the  preaching,  which  Matthias 
«hould  do,  he  was  not  one  of  the  eleven. 
Oh,  he  will  leave  him  out!  You  will! 
What  about  the  preaching  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas?  They  were  not  of  the  eleven  ; 
yet  those  who  believed  their  preaching  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  signs  follow- 
ed? What  about  Ananias?  He  was  not  one  of 
the  eleven,  nor  an  apostle  either,  yet  Paul 
received  the  manifestation,  (miraculous, 
too,)  of  the  Holy  Ghost  under  his  hands. 
This  solution  of  his  reminds  me  of  the  dar- 
kie's  discourse  upon  which  he  was  interro- 
gated by  another  gentleman  of  color.  A 
few  such  questions  as  these  would  spoil 
Braden's  entire  theory.  This  is  after  his 
interpretation  of  1  Cor.  12:  13.  "For  by  one 
spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body.'' 
He  says  that  Kelley  does  not  know  the  dif- 
ference between  baptized  by  the  spirit  and 
baptized  by  the  command  of  the  spirit." 
X,et  us  see  if  Braden  does.  The  following 
is  Jesus'  language:  "Except  a  man  be  born 
of  the  water  and  of  the  spirit" — Oh,  no, 
Jesus  !  Braden  says  you  do  not  understand 
it.  You  should  have  said :  "Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  command  of 
the  Spirit."  Yes,  that  is  very  clear ;  Kelley 
cannot  understand  it. 

Take  another :— Paul,  Titus,  3.  "By  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Hold  a  moment,  Paul! 
Braden  says  "by  the  command"  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ye  are  renewed.  My  friends, 
.whether  Kelley  can  understand  or  not,  he 
has  it  just  as  Jesus  and  all  the  apostles  did. 
But  Braden  has  the  effrontery  to  add  to  the 
word  of  God  and  insert  in  the  plain  teach- 
ing of  Paul,  the  words,  "the  command  of," 
in  order  to  keep  up  his  Disciple  theory,  that 
the  baptism  of  the  spirit  is  not  for  our  time. 

Again,  he  takes  up  the  text:  "My  words 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life."  Here  it 
is,  no  spirit  except  through  the  medium  of 
the  word ;  yet  they  received  the  Holy  Spirit 
on  Pentecost  day,  shed  through  Jesus  Christ 
and  not  the  word.  Philip  preached  the 
word  at  Samaria,  but  the  word  did  not  give 
them  the  Holy  Ghos,t,  nor  they  did  not  re- 
ceive it  through  the  medium  of  the  word. 
But  when  Peter  and  John  laid  their  hands 
on  the  believers  in  the  word  which  Philip 
had  preached,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  fell 
upon  them.  "And  when  Simon  saw  that 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  the 
Holy  Spirit  wa-j  given,  he  offered  them 
money."  Again,  Paul  says  to  the  Ephesian 
saints:  "After  that  ye  heard  the  word  of 
truth,  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  promise,  after  that  ye  believed."  O,  no, 
Paul !  when  they  believed  the  word  they 
had  it,  Braden  says.  The  scripture  is  plain 
without  his  torturing  it.  Jesus  says :  "The 
words  that  I  speak  unto  y>"  they  are  spirit 
and  they  are  life."  Ohe*'  en  •  to  the  >rds 
v  11  bring  forth  the  life,  L  the  idea  V  nght. 
'1  know  that  the  commandment  if  lif«» 


everlasting,"  says  Jesus  again.  Not  if  a 
man  has  it  and  does  not  keep  it,  however, 
but  if  he  keeps  it,  it  will  bring  him  into 
life.  It  is  the  royal  road.  So  of  the  spirit. 
If  he  follows  the  commandments  he  will 
receive  the  spirit,  the  seal  of  adoption  shed 
abroad  into,  the  heart  by  Jesus  Christ  as  a 
comfort  and  acknowledgment  for  having1 
kept  the  word.  But  if  he  hears  and  be- 
lieves the  word  and  then  does  not  comply 
therewith,  he  does  not  get  the  spirit  shed 
abroad  from  on  high,  and  enabling  us  to  cry 
"Abba  Father"  any  more  than  if  he  be- 
lieved the  word  and  will  not  comply  there- 
with he  will  get  the  life  spoken  of  therein 
by  Jesus. 

Mr.  Braden  objects  to  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon because  of  the  use  of  the  word  "arrest." 
Do  not  try  to  arrest  the  scripture.  Yes, 
arrest.  Webster  says,  in  defining  the  word, 
"anything  by  power,  physical  or  moral.'' 
And  Bishop  Taylor  uses  the  word  in  that 
sense:  "Were  sad  arrests  to  his  troubled 
spirit."  You  can  select  a  more  appropriate 
word  according  to  the  usage  now,  but  the 
idea  conveyed  is  the  same  if  the  other  is 
used. 

He  still,  for  want  of  argument,  infringes 
upon  the  modesty  of  this  audience  with  his 
smart  turn,  borrowed  from  Howe,  on  the 
word  ox;  but  I  took  up  your  school  diction- 
ary to-day  and  copied  as  follows:  "When 
wild  animals  are  spoken  of  (such  animals 
as  are  found  in  the  woods)  ox  is  very  often 
applied  to  both  male  and  female."  When  I 
quoted  this  the  other  night  he  shook  his 
head.  But  that  is  nothing.  He  has  shaken 
his  head  at  a  number  of  other  facts  during 
this  discussion.  The  audience,  I  judge,  can 
likely  see  the  points  made  during  the  de- 
bate without  he  or  I  having  to  shake  our 
heads  at  them.  So  much  for  his  jack  and 
bull  criticism. 

But  he  says,  that  Joseph  Smith  said  some 
hard  things  about  the  actions  of  David 
Whitmer  and  Oliver  Cowdery  in  1838.  Yes, 
he  wrote  a  letter  after  lying  in  jail  for  weeks 
surrounded  by  as  wicked  and  foul-mouthed 
a  guard  as,  perhaps,  ever  kept  any  man, 
and  from  which  he  suffered  abuse  each 
hour,  and  at  a  time  when  there  had  been  a 
misunderstanding  between  these  parties 
and  some  others,  as  to  the  proper  thing  for 
the  church  to  do;  there  bad,  likewise, 
arose  a  division,  and  a  hot  one  too.— just 
like  it  was  between  Paul  and  Barnabas  at 
Antioch,  when  they  got  so  mad  at  each 
other  they  would  not  travel  the  same  road  ; 
likeElisha  2  Kings,  13:19:  "And  the  man 
of  God  was  wroth,"  but  he  is  there  repres- 
ented to  be  prophesying  all  the  time ;  and 
when  the  friends  of  one  of  these  parties  had 
told  their  side  of  the  story  to  Joseph  and 
Hyrum  Smith  while  they  were  thus  jailed 
and  treated  as  dogs,  it  was  more  than 
humanity  could  endure ;  and  they  right 
lively  retorted  back.  But  what  haa  that  to 
do  with  the  truth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  or 
to  show  that  Mr.  Smith  was  trying  to  build 
up  a  rotten  -hm- 'i.  He  fearlessly  turned 
his  own  witnesses  out  when  they  were 
charged  with  doing  things  which,  years 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


after,  were  proven  to  be  entirely  false  so  far 
as  implication  in  counterfeiting,  roguery, 
etc.,  was  concerned.  A  little  different  to 
the  way  some  churches  do  now,  I  know. 
They  keep  those  charged  with  bad  conduct 
for  fear  of  an  exposure.  Mr.  Smith  must 
have  been  honest  or  he  would  have  feared  an 
expose  too,  from  them  in  the  matter  of  their 
testimony.  He  would  not  have  dared  to  do 
what  he  did,  had  this  their  testimony  not 
been  true.  They  were  honest  in  their  testi- 
mony, or  they  would  have  gone  back  upon 
it  after  this  treatment ;  and-  so,  instead  of 
being  an  argument  against  the  credibility 
of  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  it  is  in  its  favor  and  highly 
BO.  These  men  had  every  inducement 
possible  offered  them  to  make  them  go  back 
upon  their  testimony: — Money,  popularity, 
political  fame,  etc.,  but  they  would  not; 
and  they  have,  through  as  terrible  persecu- 
tions as  the  world  has  ever  seen  since  the 
days  of  the  spike  and  the  rack,  maintained 
the  truth  of  their  statement  and  taught  it 
to  their  children's  children ;  their  families 
to-day  being  members  of  the  church,  and 
abiding  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  set  out 
in  their  testimony  of  being  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Bible.  Every 
trying  circumstance  in  which  these  wit- 
nesses have  been  placed  is  a  standing 
monument,  attesting  the  truth  of  their 
testimony  as  first  given  to  the  world ;  for 
they  have  stood  the  test  as  does  the  solid 
rock. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  argument  then  as 
to  what  Joseph  Smith  may  have  said  about 
these  witnesses  for  Braden's  side. 

Here,  I  will  notice  that  "gordian  knot"  of 
his.  It  is  simply  misstatements  and  misrep- 
resentations that  confuses  my  opponent, 
however,  in  this.  The  brother  of  Jared  was 
not  commanded  to  bury  his  record  up  in  the 
ground,  as  my  opponent  stated,  but  to  seal 
it  up.  It  does  not  say  that  Jared's  history 
should  not  be  made  known  until  the  Gen- 
tiles were  converted.  It  was  brought  to 
light  after  Christ  had  been  crucified.  The 
account  was  re- written  by  the  Nephites  on 
plates  and  sealed  up  along  with  the  record 
of  the  Nephites.  It  was  this  part  of  the 
plates,  or  book,  that  Joseph  Smith  did  not 
translate,  and  is  not  to  be  translated  until 
the  Gentiles  repent.  My  opponent  has  the 
two  distinct  periods  and  writings  and  cir- 
cumstances confounded,  which,  by  the  way, 
is  quite  a  habit  he  has  of  doing  things — 
dull  scholar  that  he  is.  The  people  of 
Limhi  did  not  get  the  plates  that  were 
sealed  up  by  the  brother  of  Jared,  or  the 
interpreters  so  far  as  we  have  an  account, 
but  they  obtained  the  record  of  Ether 
written  on  twenty-four  plates.  The  last 
Jaredite  king  lived  a  long  time  with  the 
Mulukites,  and  Mosiah  discovered  them  at 
Zarahemla.  From  Coriantumr,  the  last 
Jaredite  king,  the  plates  of  the  brother  of 
Jared  and  interpreters  came  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  Mulukites,  and  from  them  to 
Mosiah.  This  appears  evident  from  the 
i<*ct  that  the  inter pr<  era  are  not  spoken  of 
until  that  time.  The  Book  of  Mormon  does 


not  state  just  how  the  sealed  part  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Nephites,  but  this  is  the  way 
in  which  it  could  very  naturally  have  come 
in  to  their  hands.  There  are  many  things  that 
were  not  written ;  indeed,  the  record  only 
claims  to  give  an  abridgement  of  the  things 
done.  The  interpretation  of  engravings  by 
the  "gift  and  power  of  God,"  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, page  137,  is  the  same  as  translating 
by  stones,  page  200.  The  stones  were  of  no 
benefit  only  as  God  would  manifest  his 
power  and  wisdom  in  the  same.  Just  as 
with  theUrim  andThummim,  a  stone  which 
was  in  Aaron's  breast-plate,  that  shone  by 
the  power  of  God  and  through  which  the 
high-priest  obtained  revelations.  Josephus 
says:  "It  ceased  to  shine  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before  Christ," — i.  e.,  the  power 
of  God  ceased  to  accompany  the  stone ;  hence 
no  revelation;  and  in  that. case  the  stone 
was  worthless  as  an  interpreter  or  instru- 
ment through  which  to  gain  knowledge. 
Is  this  his  only  "Gordian  Knot  fr  " 

But  he  next  objects,  that  the  book  ought 
not  to  be  believed  because  the  printer  did 
not  do  his  duty  : — There  are  typographical 
errors,  and  gramatical  errors  and  errors 
"  et  punctu-at-em."  Just  so.  I  begin  now 
to  see  that  my  opponent  means  business. 
Did  any  of  you  ever  see  a  book  that  did  not 
contain  such  errors  ?  I  never  have.  When 
last  in  Chicago  I  paid  nearly  $10  for  the 
best  Oxford  print  Bible,  printed  upon  silk 
paper  and  with  all  the  care,  it  seems,  that 
could  possibly  have  been  taken  to  get  it 
correct;  with  the  advantages  of  all  the 
various  editions  of  that  book,  and  skilled 
help,  at  the  command  of  the  publishers, 
and  I  have  noticed  in  it  since  my  return 
home  a  typographical  error.  I  refer  to  this 
to  apprise  you  to  begin  with,  of  the  diffi- 
culty in  the  way  of  issuing  a  publication  of 
the  size  of  this  book,  and  having  it  abso- 
lutely correct. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  was  printed  at  a 
small  office  in  a  little  village  of  Western 
New  York,  55  years  ago,  by  men  who  were 
not  scholars,  and  not  much  printers  either  ; 
and  he  expects  to  find  everything  just  right 
even  when  examined  in  the  light  of  the 
progress  in  these  things,  made  since  that 
time.  My  opponent  has  his  mark  set  high. 
He  wants  to  see  one  of  the  impossibles. 

He  says  he  can  find  two  thousand  mis- 
takes in  the  book.  Suppose  he  can,  what 
of  it?  The  American  Bible  Society  make 
the  claim,  so  I  understand,  that  there  are 
twenty-three  thousand  errors  in  the  Bible 
of  this  character;  but  does  this  interfere 
with  the  divine  claim  of  that  book,  or  so 
change  the  sentiment,  or  reading  that  it 
was  not  entitled  to  the  respect  and  belief  of 
all  people?  Certainly  not. 

In  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon he  wants  God  to  furnish  the  means  of 
translating  the  work  ;  then  to  write  down 
the  translation  as  made  into  English,  set 
up  the  type,  read  the  proof,  and  be  respon- 
sible for  all  poor  or  worn  out  type,  blunders 
of  copyists,  etc.,  and  then,  doubtless,  he 
would  have  the  heavy  press  work  done 
by  inspiration.  '-Just  to  think,"  Bra- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


201 


den  says,  "  of  the  Lord  correcting  him- 
self; revising  his  own  proof  reading." 
He  certainly  ought  to  be  reasonable  if  he 
is  not.  Does  he  not  know  that  the  chances 
are  ten  to  one  against  the  scribe  of  Mr. 
Smith  getting  all  of  the  words  just  as  they 
came  from  the  lips  of  the  translator,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  copy  from  this.  The  transla- 
tor had  to  change  scribes  often  during  the 
time  of  translating,  on  account  of  the  per- 
secutions against  him, — the  violence  of  mobs 
—and  to  not  have  had  many  mistakes  of 
words  and  punctuation, would  have  required 
a  miracle  each  day  equal  to  that  of  the  rais- 
ing of  Lazarus.  Before  he  has  made  any 
point  at  all  against  the  translation  he  must 
show  that  the  original  manuscript  was 
wrong  and  that,  too,  in  sentiment  and 
doctrine.  Not  simply  in  the  dropping  of  a 
word,  or  the  misuse  of  a  word.  Such  an 
objection  is  entirely  frivolous  when  consid- 
ered by  thinking  people. 

The  process  of  translation,  as  described 
by  those  who  witnessed  it,  is  clear  and 
reasonable.  The  power  of  inspiration  was 
with  the  unlettered,  yet  humble  boy, 
during  the  work  of  translation.  It  was  as 
Aaron  gazed  upon  the  Urimand  Thummim 
when  he  received  the  divine  will.  But  it 
did  not  write  down  the  words.  Mr.  Smith 
had  to  procure  a  scribe  who  did  this.  Is  it 
an  argument  against  the  truthfulness  of  it 
that  he  did  so?  The  result  of  the  work 
is  a  translation  that  is  plain,  simple,  easy 
to  be  understood  ;  correct  in  sentiment  and 
thought;  pure  and  elevating  in  teaching; 
fully  instructive  and  enlightening,  in  mor- 
ality and  religion, — to  both  the  unlearned 
and  the  wise.  Who  shall  demand  more  ? 

He  has  presented  no  mistakes  of  teach- 
ing or  thought,  neither  has  my  opponent 
shown  a  single  material  difference  in  the 
corrections  in  thought  or  sentiment  in  the 
later  editions.  There  have  been  correc- 
tions of  grammatical  and  typographical 
errors. 

Again,  he  states,  that  Martin  Harris  told 
somebody,  so  somebody  told  him,  that  he 
(Harris)  saw  the  plates  by  the  eye  of  faith. 
Suppose  he  did,  what  of  it?  Did  he  mean 
by  that  to  convey  the  idea  that  he  did  not 
see  them?  On  no!  he  wanted  to  show  that 
a  person  was  only  privileged  to  see  them 
through  the  exercise  of  faith  in  God.  Does 
any  man  object  to  that?  That  is  the  way 
Peter,  James  and  John  were  permitted  to 
be  the  especial  witnesses  of  the  transfigura- 
tion in  the  Mount,  and  is  certainly  sensible. 

Remember  that  Martin  Harris  never  went 
back  on  his  testimony  in  regard  to  his  view- 
ing the  plates  and  witnessing  the  manifest- 
ation of  the  power  of  God  upon  the  occa- 


sion, but  affirmed  the  truth  of  the  same, 
and  the  truth  of  the  work  all  through  his 
life  to  his  enemies  and  his  friends,  his 
neighbors  and  his  own  family.  But  I  ask, 
What  is  the  point  to  be  gained  in  this  dis- 
cussion by  so  viciously  attacking  the  char- 
acter of  these  witnesses,  and  that  of  Joseph 
Smith,  or  Sidney  Rigdon?  Has  it  been 
pertinent  in  answering  my  argument? 
Have  I  attempted  to  cram  you  with  what 
any  of  these  parties  said  about  it,  and 
thereby  undertaken  to  prove  the  Book  of 
Mormon  true?  Have  the  Saints  ever  so 
held  out  the  claim  to  the  world  that  men 
and  women  should  believe  in  this  book  be- 
cause these  witnesses  said  it  was  true? 
Does  the  book  so  hold?  No, sir.  All  these 
questions  must,  in  truth,  be  answered  in 
the  negative.  No  more  have  we  done  so 
than  the  apostles  asked  the  people  in  their 
time  to  believe  in  the  religion  they  brought, 
simply  from  their  statements. 

The  witnesses  were  for  the  purpose,  of 
offering  to  the  people  a  prima  facie  case, 
such  as  would  require  them,  if  honest,  to 
hear  and  investigate  the  matter,  and  be 
sufficiently  forcible  to  hold  them  responsi- 
ble for  refusing  to  entertain  and  consider 
the  message.  But  their  testimony  was  not 
all  that  the  people  were  to  be  able  to  test 
the  matter  by — far  from  it.  That  would 
have  been  the  way  for  most  men  to  work, 
but  not  our  Heavenly  Father.  He  says, 
"To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  ;  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word  it  is  be- 
cause there  is  no  light  in  them."  Isaiah 
8:20.  This  is  the  divine  rule,  and  minis- 
ters ought  to  abide  it.  The  apostles  so 
proved  their  faith  by  the  law  already  be- 
lieved in  by  the  people,  besides  being  wit- 
nesses, and  thus  presenting  a  prima  facie 
case  to  the  world.  Hence  Paul  says  of  the 
citizens  of  Berea,  "These  were  more  noble 
than  those  in  Thessalonica,  in  that  they  re- 
ceived the  word  with  all  readiness  of  mind, 
and  searched  the  scriptures  daily  whether 
those  things  were  so."  Acts  17:11.  And 
Jesus  says :  "They  (the  scriptures)  are  they 
which  testify  of  me." 

The  true  test,  then^  of  the  faith  of  a  peo- 
ple, is  not  in  the  stories  told  about  them  by 
their  enemies,  or  the  false  witnesses  that 
are  so  often  set  up  to  destroy  a  good  man, 
as  witness  the  6th  of  Acts,  12  to  15  verses; 
but  it  is  in  the  consideration  of  princi- 
ples, and  by  the  attainment  of  knowledge 
through  the  divine  promise.  "If  any  man 
will  do  his  will  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine 
whether  it  be  of  God" — a  higher,  grander 
and  more  exalting  plane  than  that  of  hark- 
eiiing  to  the  voice  of  the  slanderer,  or  fol- 
lowing in  the  trail  of  the  tale-bearer. 


.202 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   BRADEN'S   NINETEENTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMKN  : — Was  Joe  Smith  the  origina- 
tor of  Mormon  polygamy?  The  last  argu- 
ment that  we  present  in  refutation  of  our 
opponent's  claim  that  Joe  Smith  was  a  true 
prophet  of  God,  and  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon that  he  gave  to  the  world  is  of  Divine 
o  igin,  aud  worthy  to  be  accepted  as  a  reve- 
lation, is  the  damning  fact  that  Smith  was 
the  originator  of  the  abomination  Mormon 
polygamy,  and  the  author  of  that  blas- 
phemy entitled,  "A  Revelation  in  Regard 
to  Celestial  Marriage."  This  damning  fact 
that  after  wallowing  in  lewdness  for  years, 
without  even  the  pretended  sanction  of  that 
profanation  of  marriage,  polygamy,  he  gave 
to  the  world  that  infamy,  blasphemously 
entitled  "A  Revelation  in  Regard  to  Celes- 
sial  Marriage,"  and  was  the  originator  cf 
that  abomination  Mormon  polygamy,  is 
enough  to  sink  him  and  every  pretended 
revelation  from  him  below  the  vilest  depths 
of  the  most  infamous  corner  of  the  lowest 
hell.  On  no  other  topic  have  the  "re-organ- 
ized" done  so  much  lying  to  the  square  inch 
as  in  denying  that  Smith  was  the  origina- 
tor of  Mormon  polygamy  I  propose  to  end 
the  controversy  for  ever  on  that  topic.  Dr. 
Mclntyre,  family  physician  of  the  Smith's 
in  Manchester,  N.  Y.,  declares  that  the 
house  of  Joseph  Smith,  Sr.,  was  a  perfect 
brothel.  Ezra  Pierce,  Samantha  Payne 
and  other  schoolmates  and  associates  of* the 
Smith's,  testify  that  Smith  was  lewd,  and 
so  were  the  family  and  the  entire  money 
hunting  gang,  and  that  the  digging  was 
done  at  night  by  a  gang  of  low  men  sur- 
rounded by  lewd  women,  who  loafed  in  the 
daytime  and  prowled  around  at  night,  and 
that  the  Smiths  were  the  worst  of  the  gang. 
A  sister  of  Joe  left  New  York  enceinte  and 
unmarried. 

Levi  Lewis  testifies  that  while  Smith  was 

Eretending  to  translate  his  pretended  plates 
e  tried  to  seduce  Eliza  Winters  and  de- 
fended his  infamous  attempt,  declaring  that 
adultery  was  no  sin.  Dr.  John  Stafford,  a 
schoolmate,  testifies  that  Joe  was  a  great 
admirer  of  Mohammed  and  the  Koran,  and 
defended  Mohammed's  polygamy  and  the 
Koran  in  teaching  it ;  and  that  he  heard 
him  repeatedly  declare  that  polygamy  was 
right,  and  that  nature  and  the  Bible  taught 
it.  In  March,  1832,  Smith  was  stopping  at 
Mr.  Johnson's,  in  Hiram,  Ohio,  and  was 
mobbed.  The  mob  was  led  by  Eli  Johnson, 
•who  blamed  Smith  with  being  too  intimate 
with  his  sister  Marinda,  who  afterwards 
married  Orson  Hyde.  Brigham  Young,  in 
after  years,  twitted  Hyde  with  this  fact, 
and  Hjyde,  on  learning  its  truth,  put  away 
his  wife,  although  they  had  several  chil- 
dren. Lyman  Jonnson,  another  brother  of 
Marinda  Johnson,  and  a  leading  Mormon, 
repeatedly  declared  that  he  knew  that  poly- 
gamy was  practiced  by  Smith  and  others  in 


Kirtland.  Martin  Harris  told  J.  M.  Atwaterr 
Mr.  Clapp  and  many  others  that  polygamy 
was  taught  and  practiced  by  Smith  anil 
in  Kirtland  under  the  name  of  "spiritual 
'wifery."  Lewis  Bond  and  Ezra  Bond  have 
repeatedly  stated  that  their  father  and 
mother,  who  were  amongst  the  first  Mor- 
mons in  Kirtland,  repeatedly  declared  that 
Smith  practiced  polygamy  in  Kirtland,  and 
that  he  followed  a  girl  into  a  privy  and 
committed  fornication  with  her.  Mrs.  Bond 
made  such  declarations  to  Mrs.  Hansbury 
and  others.  Lewis  Bond  says  his  fathej  is 
so  disgusted  with  the  dishonesty  of  the 
Josephites  in  denying  what  he  knows  to  be 
true,  that  he  will  not  affiliate  with  them. 

Fanny  Brewer  testifies  that  Smith  had 
serious  trouble  in  Kirtland,  arising  from  his 
seducing  an  orphan  girl  living  in  his  family, 
and  that  Martin  Harris  told  her  that  Smith 
was  notoriously  lewd  and  untruthful.  Mr. 
Moreton  one  of  the  first  Apostles,  told  hi» 
daughter,  Mrs.  Hansbury,  and  her  hus- 
band thatEmma  Smith  detected  Joe  in  adul- 
tery with  a  girl  by  the  name  of  Knight^and 
that  Joe  confessed  the  crime  to  the  officers 
of  the  Church.  W.  W.  Phelps  stated  that 
while  Smith  was  pretending  to  translate 
the  papyrus,  for  his  book  of  Abraham,  he 
declared  that  polygamy  would  yet  be  a- 
prac^ce  of  the  Saints.  Martin  Harris  told 
J.  M.  Atwater,  that  the  doctrine  of  spiritual 
wifery  was  first  positively  announced  as  a> 
revelation,  by  Rigdon,  before  a  meeting  of 
the  officials  of  the  Church,  in  an  old  build- 
ing that  used  to  stand  southwest  of  the 
Temple,  W.  S.  Smith  and  others  testify  that 
the  practice  of  pealing  women  to  men  wa» 
so  much  talked  of  at  Kirtland,  while  Smith 
was  there,  that  it  became  a  by-word  on  the 
streets  ;  and  that  common  report  said,  that 
a  bitter  quarrel  between  Rigdon  and  Smith 
shortly  before  they  left  Kirtland  was  be- 
cause Smith  wanted  to  have  Nancy  Rigdon 
a  girl  of  16  sealed  to  him.  In  the  article  on 
marriage  on  pages  239,  330,  Book  of  Doc- 
trines and  Covenants,  adopted,  Mormons 
say  by  the  annual  conference  in  Kirtland, 
April  1834,  we  read:  "Inasmuch  as  this 
Church  of  Christ  has  been  charged  with  for- 
nication and  polygamy."  This  proves  that 
the  acts  and  utterances  of  Mormons  had 
been  such,  before  April,  1834,  that  outsiders 
charged  them  with  polygamy.  R.  M.  Elvin 
and  other  leading  Josephites  have  admit- 
ted that  Rigdon'  and.  Smith  have  taught 
Spiritual  wifery^or  "sealing  women  to  men  in 
time  for  eternity."  They  claim  that  it  confers 
none  of  the  privileges  of  marriage,  but  when 
a  woman  allows  another  man,  besides  her 
husband,  toge't  such  control  over  her,  as  to 
be  sealed  to  him  in  marriage— call  it  spirit- 
ual, or  celestial,  or  what  not — she  will  allow 
him  the  privileges  of  terrestial  marriage. 
Such  was  the  result  in  Smith's  case  always. 
In  the  "Elders'  Journal,"  edited  by  Joe 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Smith,  No.  2,  page  38,  published  in  Kirt- 
land,  November  1837,  in  an  editorial,  Smith 
publishes  some  questions  that  he  says 
"Were  asked  daily  and  hourly,  by  all  clas- 
ses of  persons  while  we  were  traveling." 
The  7th  is  "Do  Mormons  believe  in  having 
more  wives  than  one?"  Smith  himself  con- 
fesses that  the  acts  and  utterances  of  Mor- 
mons had  been  such,  that  all  classes  of  per- 
sons asked  him  daily  and  hourly,  while  he 
was  journeying-  between  Kirtlandand  Far 
West.  "Do  Mormons  believe  in  having 
more  wives  than  one?"  Scores  of  persons 
who  were  prominent  among  the  Mormons  in 
Missouri,  have  declared  that  Smith  confid- 
ed to  his  confidants,  that  he  had  received  a 
revelation  in  favor  of  polygamy,  but  that 
it  was  not  prudent  to  make  it  public.  The 
time  had  not  come  to  make  known  the  will  of 
the  Lord.  In  Nauvoo,  while  discussing  the 
extraordinary  power  conferred  by  the  char- 
ter they  intended  to  ask  from  the  Illinois 
Jegislature,  Smith  said  that  they  needed 
such  extraordinary  powers,  for  the  Turk, 
with  his  harem,  would  come  toNauvoo,  and 
they  must  have  power  to  protect  him  in 
polygamy.  Smith  declared  in  a  sermon  he 
preached  in  1840,  that  polygamy  was  right'. 
It  was  right,  in  the  sight  of  God,  for  a  man 
to  have  as  many  wives  as  he  pleased.  Peo- 
ple of  polygamous  countries  would  be  con- 
verted and  want  to  come  to  Zion,  and  Mor- 
mons must  have  polygamy  as  an  establish- 
ed institution,  and  then  they  could  bring 
their  polygamous  wives  with  them.  He 
made  the  same  argument  from  the  Bible 
that  Brighamites  now  make.  This  sermon 
raised  such  a  storm  he  became  alarmed,  and 
tried  to  lie  out  of  his  revelation  of  polyga- 
my, by  declaring  that  he  was  only  trying 
them  (the  Mormons).  But  he  rebuked 
them  for  their  rebellious  spirit  in  daring  to 
oppose  what  he  said,  and  told  them  that 
their  hardness  of  heart  prevented  the  will 
of  the  Lord  being  revealed  and  carried 
out.  He  practiced  polygamy  himself  and 
taught  it  to  other  leading  Mormons,  who 
also  practiced  it  in  secret  and  taught  it  to 
others. 

His  intimacy  with  Julia  Murdoch,  his 
adopted  daughter,  caused  trouble  with  his 
wife,  who  sent  the  girl  to  her  father.  At 
one  time  he  had  in  the  Mansion  House 
eleven  girls,  that  he  called  his  daughters, 
saying  that  he  had  adopted  them  to  take 
care  of  them.  His  wife  left  the  house  and 
he  had  to  dismiss  his  harem,  to  silence  the 
fecandal,  and  get  his  wife  back.  Rushton, 
•who  was  a  sort  of  factotum  about  the  Man- 
sion House,  testifies  that  while  Mrs.  Smith 
was  in  St.  Louis  on  business,  the  wife  of  a 
leading  Mormon  took  her  place  in  Joe's  bed, 
and  that  he  saw  her  there  when  he  went  to 
Joe's  room  for  some  keys.  The  complais- 
ant husband  was  made  an  apostle  for  his 
submission  to  the  will  of  the  Lord.  Did 
space  permit  we  could  give  the  sworn  state- 
ments of  Orson  Pratt's  wife,  Wm.  Law's 
wife,  Dr.  Foster's  wife,  Wm*  Mark's  daugh- 
ter, Nancy  Rigdon,  Martha  Brotherton, 
Melissa  SoLindle,  and  a  score  more  of  as  re- 
spectable women  as  ever  lived  in  Nauvoo. 


that  Smith  tried  to  seduce  them  into  spirit- 
ual wifery.  We  could  quote  the  affidavits 
'of  scores  of  men  and  women  that  positively 
swear  that  they  knew  of  his  lewedness  with 
scores  of  women.  We  could  quote  the  rev- 
elations of  Van  Duzen  and  his  wife  and 
others  in  regard  to  the  orgies  of  the  Endow- 
ment House.  The  fact  that  these  revelations 
made  before  the  death  of  Smith,  are  an  ex- 
act description  of  the  orgies  of  the  Endow- 
ment House  as  practiced  in  Utah,  proves 
that  they  were  practiced  in  Nauvoo  before 
Smith's  death,  as  these  parties  declare,  and 
that  Smith  was  their  author  as  Utah  Mor- 
mons now  declare. 

In  the  fall  of  1842  Joe  secretly  performed 
the  first  plural  marriage  ceremony.  He 
married  Wm.  Noble  to  his  first  plural  wife, 
and  Noble  united  Joe  to  his  sister.  Joe  had 
had  scores  of  spiritual  wives  be/ore  this,  but 
without  the  farce  of  a  ceremony  of  marriage. 
Soon  after  he  took  the  beautiful  wife  of  B. 
H.  Jacobs  as  a  plural  wife  as  she  and  otherg 
testify.  In  the  winter  of  1843  Smith  gave 
to  8.  H.  Jacobs  an  article  presenting  the 
usual  arguments  for  polygamy.  Jacobs  pub- 
lished it  in  the  "Wasp"  and  in  pamphlet 
form.  Joe  was  trying  the  Saints  again. 
The  opposition  to  the  infamy  alarmed  him 
again,  and  he  tried  to  lie  out  of  it,  and  pre- 
tended to  oppose  polygamy.  He  told  the  peo- 
ple again  that  their  rebellious  spirit  would 
not  let  the  will  of  the  Lord  be  made  known. 
In  the  spring  of  1843,  however,  matters  had 
gone  so  far,  so  many  had  gone  into  polyg- 
amy, Joe's  wife  was  making  so  much  oppo- 
sition to  his  course,  that  he  could  wear  his 
mask  no  longer.  June  12th,  1843,  he  dicta- 
ted to  William  Clayton  "A  Revelation  in 
Regard  to  Celestial  Marriage."  N,  K. 
Whitney,  who  has  done  more  of  Mormon 
official  writing  than  any  other  man,  de- 
clares he  heard  it  dictated  to  Clayton,  and 
that  he  copied  it  from  the  copy  taken  down 
by  Clayton.  Joseph  C.  Kinsbury  testifies 
that  he  heard  it  dicta  ted  and  copied  it  also. 

When  the  original  copy,  taken  down  by 
Clayton,  was  presented  to  Smith's  wife,  she 
declared  it  was  from  the  devil  and  burned 
it.  David  Fullmer  and  others  who  were 
Apostles  and  high  Councillors  testify  that 
Hyram  Smith  presented  the  revelation  to 
the  Apostles  and  the  Council,  and  that  it 
was  adopted  and  sanctioned.  In  the  Spring 
of  1844  Marks,  Higbee,  Law  and  otherg 
seceded  and  held  meetings.  In  these 
meetings,  ladies  of  the  highest  character, 
positively  testified  that  Smith  and  other 
Mormon  leaders  had  tried  to  seduce  them 
into  polygamy.  Scores  testified  to  the  poly- 
gamy of  Smith  and  Mormon  leaders,  and 
to  the  abominations  of  the  Endowment 
House,  and  other  secret  meetings  of  the 
Mormons.  In  June  1844  the  malcontents 
issued  a  paper  called  the  "Nauvoo Exposi- 
tor." In  it  were  affidavits  of  sixteen  ag 
respectable  ladies  as  were  in  Nauvoo,  that 
Smith  and  other  Mormon  leaders  had  tried 
to  seduce  them  into  polygamy.  Joe's 
answer  was  to  send  a  mob  of  his  tools  to 
destroy  the  press  and  compel  the  publishers 
to  flv  for  their  lires.  They  swore  out  war- 


204 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


rants  for  the  arrest  of  Smith.  He  was  put 
In  jail  at  Cartage  and  murdered,  not  by 
Missiourians  and  Illinoisians,  but  by  men  ' 
whose  wives  and  daughters  he  had  tried  to 
ruin.  He  fell,  not  as  a  martyr  to  religion, 
but  as  a  victim  to  his  own  crimes,  as  he 
himself  declared  when  going  to  Carthage. 
Such  are  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  career 
of  Smith  in  his  connection  with  Mormon 
polygamy. 

We  prove  our  statement  by  the  testimony 
of  intimate  acquaintances  of  Smith  in  New 
York,  leading  Mormons  and  citizens  in 
Kirtland,  leading  Mormons  in  Missouri, 
leading  Mormons  in  Nauvoo.  We  have 
cited  the  statements  and  certificates  of 
scores.  We  prove  that  Smith  was  the 
author  of  the  revelation  in  favor  of  Poly- 
gamy by  Clayton  to  whom  he  dictated  it. 
Whitney  and  Kingsbury  who  heard  it 
dictated  and  copied  it.  By  Fullmer  and 
other  apostles  and  councillors  to  whom 
Hyram  Smith  presented  it,  and  by  whom  it 
was  sanctioned.  We  cite  the  testimony  of 
Edwin  Hunter,  presiding  bishop  of  Utah 
church,  in  an  affidavit  dated  Salt  Lake  City, 
September  1st,  1883.  He  solemnly  swears, 
"Since  1842  he  has  held  most  intimate  re- 
lations, personal  and  official,  with  the  lead- 
ing men  of  the  Church.  President  Joseph 
Smith  was  his  warmest  personal  friend,  he 
was  herald  and  armor-bearer  to  Joseph. 
From  this  very  intimate  and  personal  rela- 
tion and  intercourse  he  knows  that  Joseph 
Smith  both  taught  and  practised  the  celes- 
tial and  eternal  order  of  marriage  from 
the  beginning  of  our  acquaintance  to  the 
time  of  his  death."  This  is  but  one 
of  scores  that  can  be  cited,  scores  to 
whom  Smith  taught  polygamy.  The 
testimony  of  Eliza  R.  Snow,  Eliza  Par- 
tridge, Emily  Partridge,  Lucy  Walker,  Mrs. 
Jacobs  and  others  to  whom  Smith  was 
married  in  polygamy. 

The  testimony  of  others  who  saw  him 
married  in  polygamy  among  the  rest,  the 
oath  of  his  niece,  the  daughter  of  Hyram 
Smith,  that  she  saw  him  married  in  poly- 
gamy. The  oaths  of  persons  for  whom  he 
performed  the  ceremony  of  plural  marriage. 
W.  Noble,  J.  B.  Noble,  J.  D.  Lee,  and 
others.  The  reply  to  all  this  array  of 
evidence  is  an  impudent  denial,  without 
one  particle  of  rebutting  testimony,  and 
abuse  of  the  witnesses  as  liars  and  per- 
jurers. As  the  persons  who  now  pour  out 
such  abuse  did  not  make  such  denials  when 
the  facts  were  recent,  and  make  them  now 
when  they  think  the  evidence  can  be  weak- 
ened by  such  denials,  on  account  of  lapse  of 
time,  these  denials  are  merely  the  retort  of 
the  cornered  ruffian,  "You  are  a  liar."  It 
is  amusing  to  read  the  weak  efforts  of  the 
Josephites  to  get  rid  of  the  damning  fact 
that  Impostor  Joe  was  the  originator  of 
those  abominations,  Mormon  polygamy  and 
the  revelation  in  favor  of  it.  They  remind 
one  of  the  lawyer  who  was  defending  a 
man  charged  with  stealing  a  kettle  and 
failing  to  return  it.  He  said  I.  The  plain- 
tiff never  had  a  kettle.  II.  We  never  bor- 
rowed his  kettle.  III.  We  returned  the 


kettle.  IV.  The  kettle  was  worthless.  V. 
We  paid  for  the  kettle.  VI.  The  kettle 
was  ours  in  the  first  place.  In  like  manner, 
I.  T.  W.  Smith  suggests  that  in  giving  Im- 
postor Joe  that  revelation  in  favor  of  poly- 
gamy, the  Lord  did  not  do  different  from 
what  he  did  in  his  revelation  to  David 
through  Nathan;  thus  tacitly  admitting 
that  Joe  did  have  such  a  revelation  and 
that  it  is  all  right.  II.  The  leading  editorial 
in  the  first  number  of  the  Saints'  Herald 
says  that  the  Lord  gave  that  revelation  to 
Joe  to  punish  Joe  and  the  Mormons.  III. 
In  the  same  number  Isaac  Sheen  says  Joe 
had  such  a  revelation  and  that  it  was  from 
the  devil.  IV.  Joe  lied  and  said  he  received 
such  a  revelation,  when  he  did  not.  V.  It 
is  a  lie  and  a  forgery  gotten  up  by  Utah 
Mormons.  VI.  It  is  a  lie  told  by  the 
Gentiles. 

As  the  "clodings"  peddler  tells  us,  "you 
takes  which  you  likes."  It  is  all  the  same 
material — lie — throughout.  When  the  Jo- 
sephites started,  they  did  not  dare  to  deny 
that  Joe  was  the  originator  of  Mormon  poly- 
gamy, and  the  author  of  that  revelation. 
The  facts  were  too  recent  and  there  was  too 
much  evidence  to  be  lied  down.  Forty  years 
have  elapsed  since  the  revelation  was  given 
and  over  fifty  since  Joe  first  taught 
and  practised  polygamy.  Now  they 
impudently  try  to  lie  out  of  it.  We 
will  stop  all  such  lying  attempts  by  quot- 
ing their  own  testimony,  given  when 
they  started,  and  when  the  facts  were 
recent  and  the  evidence  so  palpable  that 
they  freely  admitted  the  truth  themselves. 
On  page  26  of  the  Saints'  Herald,  Vol.  1, 
No.  1,  William  Marks,  one  of  the  leaders  iu 
there-organization  movement,  one  of  their 
founders  and  a  leader  till  his  death,  declares 
that  June  1844  he  was  presiding  elder  of  the 
Stake  at  Nauvpo,  and  presiding  officer  of 
the  High  Council.  At  that  time  the  Church 
had  in  a  great  measure  departed  from  the 
pure  doctrines  and  principles  of  Jesus  Christ, 
it  was  revealed  to  him  that  the  only  way 
to  purify  the  church  was  to  dis-organize  it. 
A  few  days  after  this  revelation  to  him,  the 
Prophet  Joseph  sought  an  interview  with 
him,  and  said  to  him  in  these  words,  verba- 
tim, for  they  were  indelibly  impressed  on 
his  memory : 

"  He  had  for  a  long  time  desired  to  have  an  Interview 
11  with  me  on  the  subject  of  polygamy.  It  would  prove 
'  the  overthrow  of  the  church  and  we  would  have  to 
'  leave  the  United  States  on  account  of  it.  He  would 
'  go  before  the  congregation  and  proclaim  against  it. 
'  1  n 


must  go   before  the   High  council   and    proclaim 
against  it.    He  would  prefer  charges  against  those  ia 
'transgression,    and    I   must    sever   them   from   the 
*  Church,    if  they  would  not  make  complete   satis- 
faction. ' 


From  this  clear,  positive  and  circumstan- 
tial evidence  of  one  who  was  high  in  au- 
thority at  Nauvoo  when  Smith's  influence 
as  a  prophet  was  omnipotent  in  the  church 
—one  who  was  intimate  with  Smith — one 
who  knew  perfectly  all  that  was  going  on 
in  the  church — one  who  was  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  Re-organization  and  a  leader 
till  his  death,  as  given  in  the  first  number 
of  the  official  organ  of  the  Re-organized,  we 
prove : 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


205 


I.  That  while  Smith    was   living,    and 
when  his  influence  as  a  prophet  was  omnip- 
otent in  the  church,  this  abomination  was 
so  prevalent  that  Marks,  presiding  elder  at 
Nauvoo,  declared  that  the  only  way  to  pu- 
rify the  church  was  to  dis-organize  it. 

II.  That  this    abomination,   polygamy, 
prevailed  to  such  an  extent  that  its  author, 
Smith,  became  alarmed  and  declared  that 
it  would  be  the  ruin  of  the  church,  and  that 
the  Mormons  would  be  driven  out  of  the 
United  States  on  account  of  it. 

III.  The   testimony   of  Marks    and    of 
Smith  himself  substantiates  the  charges  of 
the  witnesses  we  have  cited,  that  polygamy 
was  prevalent  in  the  church  when  it  was 
nnder  the  control  of  Smith,  and  when  his 
influence  as  prophet  was  omnipotent  in  it. 
Also  the  statements  of  witnesses  in  regard 
to  the  orgies  of  the  Endowment  House  and 
other    secret    meetings    in    Nauvoo.      The 
church  had  become  corrupt  in  polygamy 
and  lust. 

Marks  does  not  state  how  far  Smith  was 
responsible  for  the  horrible  state  of  affairs 
that  so  alarmed  him,  but  as  he  had  been 
and  was  the  great  prophet,  and  as  his  influ- 
ence was  omnipotent,  so  startling  an  inno- 
vation as  polygamy  could  not  have  become 
so  prevalent  unless,  as  hundreds  of  wit- 
nesses testify,  he  was  the  originator  of  it. 
Josephites  appeal  to  Marks'  statement  that 
Smith  told  Marks  that  he  and  Marks  must 
oppose  it.  True,  but  it  was  because  he 
found  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
would  drive  the  Mormons  out  of  the  country 
on  account  of  it,  and  thus  ruin  Mormonism. 

We  quote  from  page  27  of  the  first  num- 
ber of  the  official  organ  of  the  Josephites  a 
statement  of  Isaac  Sheen,  one  of  the  found- 
ers of  the  Re-organization,  and  one  of  the 
leaders  till  his  death : 

"Joseph  Smith  repented  of  his  connection  with  this 
doctrine  (polygamy)  and  said  it  was  from  the  devil. 
He  caused  the  revelation  on  that  su)  ject  (polygamy)  to 
be  burnt.  When  he  voluntarily  came  back  to  Nauvoo 
and  surrendered  himself  into  the  hands  of  his  enenves, 
he  said  he  was  going  to  Carth«f»f>  to  die.  At  that  time 
he  also  said  that  if  it  bad  not  been  for  that  accursed 
spiritual  wife  doctrine  be  never  would  have  come  to 
that"  (condition.) 

By  this  positive  statement,  published 
with  approval  in  the  first  number  of  the 
official  organ  of  the  Josephites,  and  made 
by  one  of  the  editors,  a  founder  of  the  Jo- 
sephites and  a  leader  till  his  death,  we 
prove: 

I.  That  Joseph  was  the  author  of  the 
vile  pretended  revelation  in  favor  of  poly- 
gamy. 

II.  That  the   statement  made  by  Mor- 
mons in  Utah  is  true,  that  the  original  of 
the  revelation  was  burned.     Sheen  tries  to 
give  Smith   credit    for    burning  it.     Utah 
Mormons  tell  the  truth  and  say  that  his 
wife  burned  it. 

III.  That  Smith    publicly  and  openly 
confessed  that  he  was  the  author  of  it,  and 
that  the  death  he  feared  would  be  caused 
by  his  crimes  in  polygamy. 

We  will  now  clinch  the  matter  by  quoting 
from  the  leading  editorial  in  the  first  num- 
ber of  the  official  organ  of  the  Re-organized, 
written,  it  is  said,  by  Z.  H.  Gurley,  one  of 


the  founders  of  the  Josephites  and  a  leader 
in  that  body,  and  an  editor  of  that  official 
organ  from  which  we  quote,  pages  8  and  9 : 

"This  adulterous  spirit"  (of  polygamy) 
"had  so  captivated  their  hearts"  (the  hearts 
of  the  Mormons),  "that  they"  (the  Mor- 
mons) "desired  license  from  God  to  lead 
away  captive"  (in  polygamy)  "the  fair 
daughters  of  his  people."  Could  the  Lord 
do  anything  more  or  less  than  Ezekiel  hath 
prophecied?  The  Lord  hath  declared  by 
Ezekiel  what  kind  of  an  answer  he  would 
give  them.  Therefore  he  answered  them 
according  to  the  multitude  of  their  idols. 
Paul  had  also  prophecied  "for  this  cause 
God  shall  send  them  strong  delusions  that 
they  might  believe  a  lie,  and  that  they  all 
might  be  damned."  In  Ezekiel  the  Lord 
also  says  "I  will  set  my  face  against  that 
man,  the  prophet,  and  I  will  cut  him  off 
from  the  midst  of  my  people,  and  ye  shall 
know  that  I  am  the  Lord."  The  death  of 
the  prophet  (Joseph  Smith)  is  a  fact  that 
has  been  realized,  although  he  repented  of 
:his  iniquity  (polygamy),  "and  abhorred 
it  before  his  death." 

By  this  leading  editorial  of  the  first  num- 
ber of  the  official  organ  of  the  Re-organized, 
written  by  one  of  the  founders  and  leaders 
of  the  Josephites,  one  familiar  with  Smith, 
and  what  transpired  in  Nauvoo  we  prove. 

I.  That    Smith  was  the   author  of   the 
revelation  in  favor  of  polygamy,  and  that 
his  death  by  violence  was  caused  by  his 
connection  with  the  iniquity  of  polygamy. 

II.  That  Smith  repented  of  this  iniquity 
before  his    death.     This  confirms  Sheen's 
testimony. 

These  three  declarations  of  founders  of 
Josephites  made  in  the  first  number  of  their 
official  organ  ought  to  palsy  the  tongues  of 
the  Josephites  with  shame,  when  they  are 
trying  to  lie  out  of  the  truth  in  regard  to 
Smith's  polygamy.  The  Josephites  assert 
that  these  men  have  since  retracted  their 
statements.  If  that  were  true  it  would 
merely  show  that  in  the  first  number  of  the 
"Saints'  Herald,"  when  the  facts  were  re- 
cent, they  stated  what  was  true,  because 
the  evidence  could  not  then  be  gainsayed  ; 
and  that  since  then,  when  they  think  that 
the  evidence  has  disappeared,  they  are  try- 
ing to  lie  out  of  the  truth  they  once  con- 
fessed. But  we  defy  Josephites  to  produce 
evidence  that-they  have  ever  retracted  these 
statements.  These  statements  stood  for 
years  unquestioned  and  admitted.  Now 
Josephites  try  by  cheek  and  impudence  to 
lie  out  of  the  damning  fact  that  Joe 
Smith  was  the  originator  of  Mormon  poly- 
gamy. The  evasions  of  Josephites  when 
forced  to  face  this  crushing  array  of  testi- 
mony are  contemptible  in  their  weakness. 
They  heap  abuse  on  the  one  who  presents 
the  evidence.  That  is  as  sensible  as  it 
would  be  for  a  pettifogger  to  abuse  the  law- 
yer whose  array  of  evidence  he  could  not 
meet.  It  matters  not  what  the  lawyer  may 
be.  That  does  not  affect  one  particle  the 
evidence  of  the  witnesses  he  presents.  They 
abuse  and  villify  the  witnesses.  They  ar» 
liars,  slanderers,  &c.,  although  they  are 


206 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


most  ef  them  Mormons,  and  were  leaders 
among  the  Mormons  before  they  gave  their 
testimony.  Calling  them  names  will  not 
get  aside  their  evidence. 

They  appeal  to  the  denials  of  Smith  and 
others.  The  cheek  displayed  in  such  a  plea 
colossal.  On  the  same  ground  every  scoun- 
drel arraigned  for  crime  should  be  declared 
innocent  because  he  denies  it.  If  persons 
who  accept  such  denials  were  judges  in 
criminal  trials,  they  would  set  every  scoun- 
drel free  the  moment  he  set  up  the  plea, 
"not  guilty."  If  men  commit  so  infamous 
a  crime  as  polygamy,  they  will  not  hesitate 
to  lie  out  of  it.  The  Pratts,  Taylor,  Richards 
and  others,  who  united  with  Smith  in  such 
denials,  now  admit  that  they  and  Smith 
were  practicing  polygamy,  when  the  deni- 
als were  made,  and  that  th-  and  Smith 
lied  in  denying  it,  because  it  not  then 

prudent  to  avow  it.  Smith's  revelations 
and  teachings  contain  many  instances  where 
concealment  and  deception  were  com- 
manded under  similar  circumstances. 
Smith's  character  for  fraud,  lying,  cheat- 
ing and  deception  were  notorious  all  his 
life.  The  impudence  of  persons  who  will 
appeal  the  denials  of  such  a  person  in 
the  face  of  hundreds  of  witnesses  whose 
testimony  is  clear  and  direct,  is  idiotic  it  its 
silliness. 

When  the  clear  positive  testimony  of  O. 
Pratt,  P.  P.  Pratt,  Taylor,  Richards,  Kings- 
bury,  Clayton,  and  scores  of  others  is 
quoted  to  the  Josephites,  that  they  saw 
Smith  unite  in  plural  marriage  many  per- 
sons, that  they  saw  him  married  in  plural 
marriage,  that  he  united  them  to  other  men 
and  women  in  plural  marriage;  that  he 
dictated,  in  their  presence,  the  revelation 
in  favor  of  plural  marriage;  they  howl 
"Brighamite"  "  Polygamist ",  and  sneer 
at  the  one  quoting  the  testimony,  for 
uniting  with  Utah  polygamistsin  defaming 
the  character  of  martyred  Joseph.  The 
Josephites  publish  and  use  as  their  stand- 
ards, the  works  of  the  Pratts  and  other 
Utah  Mormons.  They  quote  their  testi- 
mony in  their  books,  and  accept  it  un- 
questioned, on  all  topics,  except  their 
positive  declaration  that  Smith  was  the 
originator  of  polygamy.  If  these  men  and 
women  are  worthy  of  perfect  credence  on 
all  other  topics,  as  the  Josephites  show,  by 
the  way  they  quote  them,  they  are  worthy 
of  as  much  credence,  when  they  declare 
that  Smith  was  the  author  of  p'ol.vgamy. 
The  course  of  the  Josephites  in  this  is  ab- 
surdly contradictory,  and  is  an  insult  to  the 
good  sense  of  all  people  of  sense.  They  quote 
these  parties  with  absolute  confidence  on 
all  other  matters,  and  they  cannot  reject 
their  evidence  on  this  topic  merely  because 
it  contradicts  their  lying  attempt  to  lie  out 
of  Smith's  connection  with  polygamy. 

Young  Joseph  appeals  to  what  he  says 
his  mother  told  him.  If  Emma  Smith  ever 
made  such  statements  to  him  she  lied  in 
the  face  of  what  she  knew  hundreds  knew 
Of  her  troubles  with  Joe  in  New  York,  over 
Eliza  Winters,  and  in  Kirtland  over  the 
Knight  girl  and  several  others,  that  she 


herself  charged  Joe  with  adultery  in  Kirt- 
land, and  that  he  confessed  it  to  her  and 
the  Church,  that  she  sent  Julia  Murdoch  to 
her  father  because  of  Joe's  intimacy  with 
her,  that  she  left  the  Mansion  House  in 
Nauvoo  on  account  of  Joe's  harem  of  girls, 
and  that  she  knew  of  his  polygamy,  and 
was  present  at  his  marriage  to  four  of  his 
plural  wives.  She  either  lied  in  the  face  of 
all  this  evidence,  or  young  Joseph  lied  in 
manufacturing  that  evidence.  I  have  heard 
several  persons  who  were  intimate  with 
her  and  her  history,  make  this  statement. 
Finally  they  appeal  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  condemns  secret 
societies  in  scores  of  instances,  far  more 
positively  than  it  does  polygamy,  yet  Rig- 
don,  Smith,  and  leading  Mormons  become 
members  of  such  societies,  and  instituted 
them,  in  the  face  of  these  scores  of  positive 
condemnations  of  them. 

Several  as  glaring  violations  of  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Book  of  Mormon  can  be  cited. 
The  teachings  of  the  standards  of  the  church 
do  not  amount  to  a  feather's  weight  in  the 
face  of  such  an  array  of  evidence  of  the 
facts  ;  especially  when  Smith  trampled  them 
under  foot  in  scores  of  instances. 

But  the  Book  of  Mormon  leaves  the  door 
open  to  polygamy.  Immediately  after  t  e 
passage  quoted  to  prove  that  it  condemns 
polygamy,  occurs  this  language.  After  de- 
claring that  the  people  must  keep  the  com- 
mandment against  polygamy,  just  given  to 
them,  it  adds,  "For  if  I  will  raise  up  a  seed 
unto  me,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  I  will 
command  my  people.  Otherwise  they  shall 
keep  my  commandments,"  (against  poly- 
gamy). This  means  just  this,  "If  I  will 
raise  up  a  seed  unto  me,  I  will  command 
my  people  to  practise  polygamy.  Until  then 
they  are  to  keep  my  present  commandment 
against  polygamy,"  That  this  is  what  it 
means  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  in  the 
pretended  revelation  in  favor  of  polygamy 
the  great  object  of  polygamy  is  declared  to 
be  to  "raise  up  a  seed  unto  the  Lord."  In 
that  sentence  following  the  commandment 
against  polygamy  the  door  is  left  open  for 
polygamy,  when  Rigdon  and  Smith  chose 
to  introduce  it. 

This  is  confirmed  by  Smith's  language  in 
an  entry  in  his  diary  under  date  of  October 
5th,  1843. 

"  Gave  instructions  to  try  those  persons  who  were 
'  teaching,  practising  and  preaching  the  doctrine  of 
'  plurality  of  wives.  For  according  to  the  law;  I  hold 
'  the  keys  to  tliis  power  (to  teach  and  practise  poly. 
1  gamy )  in  the  lust  days,  for  there  is  never  but  one 
'  on  the  earth,  at  a  time,  on  whom  this  power  ( to  teach 
•and  practice  polygamy),  or  its  keys  are  conferred. 
'  And  I  have  constantly  said,  that  no  mnn  shall  have 
'  but  one  wife  at  a  time,  unlets  the  Lord  orders  other- 
'  wise." 

Smith  does  not  order  persons  to  be  dealt 
with  because  polygamy  is  wrong,  but  be- 
cause they  are  rushing  ahead  with  it  without 
authority  from  him.  They  are  making  it 
too  public  and  leading  others  into  it,  when 
he  alone  has  that  power.  He  teaches  that 
men  shall  have  but  one  wife,  unless  the 
Lord,  through  him,  gives  permission  to 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


207 


have  more  than  one.  Joe  had  given  the 
revelation  in  favor  of  polygamy,  but  he  had 
not  allowed  it  to  be  publicly  taught  yet. 
Persons  could  avail  themselves  of  the 
license  it  gave,  only  as  he,  in  person, 
allowed  them  to  do  so.  Such  are  the  facts 
in  the  case  in  regard  to  Smith's  polygamy. 

There  is  not  as  clear  evidence  in  favor  of 
any  pretended  revelation  Joe  ever  gave,  as 
in  favor  of  this  revelation  in  favor  of  poly- 
gamy. The  Josephites  have  no  more 
warrant  to  reject  this,  than  any  other 
revelation. 

We  defy  the  Josephites  to  present  as  clear 
evidence  that  Smith  dictated  any  other  re- 
velation, as  we  have  presented  for  this.  As 
clear  evidence  that  he  gave  any  other 
revelation,  or  as  clear  evidence  that  Smith 
practised  any  other  practice,  as  we  have 
given  that  he  practised  polygamy.  Let 


them  select  the  revelation  cr  practice  and 
undertake  it.  As  intelligent  a  Mormon  as 
the  writer  ever  met  declared  to  him  that 
she  was  disgusted  with  the  duplicity  of  the 
Josephites  in  denying  the  palpable  facts  of 
history.  The  only  true  course  was  to 
acknowledge  the  truth  that  Smith  was 
guilty  of  licentiousness  and  polygamy,  and 
was  the  author  of  the  revelation  in  its 
favor,  and  then  claim  that  it  no  more  affected 
the  Book  of  Mormon  than  Solomon's  poly- 
gamy affected  his  writings. 

Will  Joseph  Smith  and  his  followers  cease 
to  deny  the  plainest  facts  of  history  and 
own  the  truth  in  regard  to  Smith's  connec- 
tion with  polygamy.  They  are  lying  for  no 
purpose,  for  no  one  believes  them,  and  the 
only  result  is  to  cover  them  with  infamy  for 
their  impudent  falsehood. 


KELLEY'S  CLOSING   SPEECH  ON   FIRST  PROPOSITION. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — It  is  with  no  little  gratifica- 
tion and  pleasure  that  I  am  again  permitted 
to  claim  your  attention  in  the  consideration 
of  the  question,  "Is  the  Book  of  Mormon  of 
Divine  origin,  and  are  its  teachings  entitled 
to  the  respect  and  belief  of  all  Christian 
people?" 

This  is  also  my  last  thirty  minutes  upon 
the  proposition,  and  after  answering  the  ob- 
jections and  assertions  last  presented  by 
my  opponent,  I  shall  pass  to  a  review  and 
general  summary  of  the  arguments  and 
positions  upon  the  questions  by  both  dis- 
putants. 

I  am  surprised  to  find  my  opponent  at 
this  late  time  in  the  discussion,  telling  the 
audience  how  much  he  can  prove.  He  has 
now  had  ten  evenings  in  which  to  do  this, 
and  he  has  not  done  it.  I  suggest  that  it 
will  look  better  for  him  to  first  do  some- 
thing if  he  can  towards  proving  his  stories, 
or  meeting  the  argument  of  the  affirmative, 
and  then  tell  you  what  he  has  done. 

I  have  been  waiting  and  listening  with 
patience  too,  these  ten  evenings  for  some 
testimony  to  meet,  or  arguments  to  reply 
to,  but  nothing  has  fallen  upon  my  ears  ex- 
cept bundles  and  scraps  of  the  most  dog- 
matical assertions,  bound  up  with  state- 
ments of  what  he  can  Drove  by  Mr.  Ru- 
dolph, or  by  witnesses" from  Mr.  Howe's 
book,  or  Mr.  Tucker's  ;  or  what  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, Mrs.  Amos  Dunlap  or  somebody  else 
has  said.  Of  these  persons  named  by  him, 
are  Mr.  Rudolph,  a  minister  of  his  own  de. 
nomination,  who  lives  but  three  miles  away, 
and  Mr.  Howe  who  lives  but  nine.  Of  these 


I  took  the  firm  position  from  the  very  first, 
that  I  had  myself  had  conversations  with 
both  within  the  past  few  months,  and  that 
neither  of  them  in  fact  knew  a  single  thing 
that  was  in  the  least  contradictory  to  my 
positions  upon  this  question,  and  invited 
him  to  put  them  upon  the  stand  here  for 
examination,  the  latter  at  my  expense. 
Has  he  done  so?  Has  he  tried  to  have  them 
appear?  Will  I  find  him  after  this  discus- 
sion has  closed,  traveling  the.  country 
through,  and  telling  what  he  can  do,  or 
what  his  witnesses  knew?  But  he  says 
now,  that  he  don't  claim  Mr.  Howe  as  a  wit- 
ness, only  as  a  lawyer  who  compiled  the 
evidence.  But  I  have  attacked  the  compi- 
lation itself, — the  manner  of  the  work  and 
what  it  contains.  Shown  the  gross  perver- 
sions and  misquotations  in  it,  and  demand- 
ed that'  Mr.  Howe  first  satisfactorily  ac- 
count for  this,  and  the  destruction  of  the 
originals  of  the  purported  statements  and 
affidavits  contained  in  that  book,  and  the 
original  manuscript  of  Mr.  Spaulding 
before  it  is  proper  under  any  view  of 
the  case  to  use  them  before  this  audience. 
This  is  the  only  basis  Mr.  Braden  has  for 
these  stories.  All  pretended  authors,  in  all 
their  publications  of  these,  either  took  them 
from  Howe's  book  or  some  other  work  that 
had  taken  them  from  his  book,  and  the  en- 
tire list  when  examined,  have  gone  down  as 
having  been  concocted  in  the  same  spirit 
and  manner  as  the  story  of  the  guards  of  the 
sepulchre  who  were  made  to  say,  "His  dis- 
ciples came  by  night  and  stole  him  away 
while  we  slept."  But  he  now  has  anothei 
witness  on  what  Rigdon  said  in  1820. 


208 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Suppose  it  to  be  true  that  Sidney  Rigdon 
did  take  the  position  in  1826,  or  1827,  that 
the  Apostolic  religion  could  not  be  intro- 
duced in  full,  unless  it  was  with  the  gifts 
accompanying  and  following  the  believer  in 
Christ,  what  of  it?  Was  it  not  a  truth 
readily  ascertained  from  the  reading  of  the 
New  Testament? 

He  would  not  in  this  have  been  adverse 
to  Charles  Wesley.  The  same  doctrine  was 
taught  by  Mr.  Wesley.  And  yet  he  could 
not  claim  for  a  moment  that  Mr.  Wesley  had 
anything  to  do  in  connection  with  Mr. 
Smith  in  getting  up  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Such  statements  as  this  which  he  has 
placed  before  you  for  argument,  only  lay 
bare  the  terrible  weakness  of  his  positions. 
Again  he  has  tried  to  run  something  in 
the  discussion  this  evening — at  the  last 
hour — in  the  hope  that  he  might  possibly 
be  able  to  throw  me  off  the  main  argument 
and  get  me  to  leave  the  question  under  dis- 
cussion, as  he  has  done,  and  debate  a  new 
issue.  What  other  reason  could  he  have 
had  for  charging  polygamy  at  the  last  hour? 
Was  it  because  he  thought  I  had  not  the 
time  to  answer  him,  and  also  make  a 
summary  of  my  arguments,  and  he  would 
thus  further  prejudice  your  minds  against 
Mr.  Smith?  What  has  polygamy  to  do 
with  the  debate  upon  the  present  question? 
Does  he  suppose  that  I  cannot  answer  the 
false  and  slanderous  charge  of  polygamy 
against  Joseph  Smith?  and  does  he  not 
know  that  I  have  answered  in  this  country 
abler  men,  and  those  better  posted  upon 
that  charge  than  is  Mr.  Braden  or  any 
preacher  of  the  so-called  Christian  church  ? 
(Applause.)  Those,  too,  who  have  had  far 
better  opportunity  for  knowing  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  charge.  It  is  a  comparatively 
easy  matter  to  answer  to  that  charge  under 
a  proper  question  and  at  a  proper  time.  I 
have  only  to  refer  to  my  books  and  the 
many  citizens  of  Kirtland  here  to  show  that 
the  parties  who  have  been  peddling  on  the 
outside  that  theSaints  believed  in  polygamy 
while  here  in  Kirtland,  or  any  kind  of  mar- 
riage in  any  relation  contrary  to  the  one 
lawful  wedlock  in  monogamy,  have  told 
absolute  falsehoods — having  no  reasonable 
basis  whatever  for  such  assertions. 

The  people  of  Utah  themselves  who  be- 
lieve in  and  practice  polygamy,  pretend  to 
no  such  thing.  And  persons'  who  are  so 
given  to  tale-bearing  as  to  insidiously  hawk 
about  such  things  against  a  people  innocent 
of  any  such  charge  are  in  a  far  more  deplora- 
ble condition  than  any  classes  of  the  Saints 
whom  it  has  been  my  lot  to  meet. 

The  law  of  the  church  was  then,  and  is 
now,  specific  upon  this  question.  In  para- 
graph 2  of  section  42,  in  a  Revelation  to  the 
church  in  1831,  the  instruction  is  emphatic: 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  wife  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  shall  cleave  unto  her  and  none 
else,  and  he  that  looketh  upon  a  woman  to 
lust  after  her  shall  deny  the  faith  and  shall 
not  have  the  spirit ;  and  if  he  repents  not 
he  shall  be  cast  out." 

Again,  in  section  49,  paragraph  3,  it  is 
written  : 


"I  say  unto  you  that  whoso  forbiddeth  to 
marry  is  not  ordained  of  God,  for  marriage 
is  ordained  of  God  unto  man;  therefore  it 
is  lawful  that  he  should  have  one  wife,  and 
they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh,  and  all  this 
that  the  earth  might  answer  the  end  of  its 
creation;  and  that  it  might  be  filled  with 
the  measure  of  man.  according  to  his  crea- 
tion  before  the  world  tvas  made.1' 

This  is  the  strongest  sentence  expressive 
of  but  a  single  person  of  each  sex  in  proper 
wedlock  that  I  have  ever  met  with  in  any 
book,  and  it  came  in  a  revelation  to  the 
church  here  in  Kirtland,  through  Joseph 
Smith.  Yet  he  seeks  to  lug  into  this  dis- 
cussion the  question  of  polygamy  to  arouse 
the  mean  sense  of  prejudice  of  the  people. 

His  own  arguments,  however,  completely 
decapitate  him.  He  says  that  "Elder  Wm. 
Marks  stated  in  a  letter  that  Joseph  Smith 
told  him  in  the  year  1844,  just  before  his 
death,  that  he  (Smith)  would  prefer  charges 
against  those  in  transgression,  and  that  he 
wanted  him  (Marks)  to  cut  them  off  from 
the  churcii."  That  being  true,  it  certainly 
could  not  be  true  what  ho  stated  but  a  few 
moments  before,  that  Joseph  Smith  was  in 
transgression  while  here  in  Kirtland.  It 
was  six  years  before  this  that  Mr.  Smith 
was  in  KirUand,  and  yet  he  has  him  makiug 
charges  against  the  transgressors.  Braden 
wants  you  to  believe  that  Mr.  Smith  was 
himself  in  transgression  and  was  to  prefer 
charges  against  himself.  The  absurdity  of 
that  conclusion  has  only  to  be  referred  to  in 
order  that  it  be  exposed.  Who  does  not 
know  that  Mr.  Smith  could  not  have  been 
guilty  of  any  such  a  thing  for"  six  years 
while  right  with  these  parties  without  their 
knowledge?  And  such  being  the  case,  it  is 
perfectly  absurd  to  think  that  he  would 
have  dared  to  instruct  Elder  Marks,  the 
President  of  the  High  Council  in  Nauvoo, 
that  he  would  prefer  charges  against  the 
transgressors  and  Elder  Marks  should  cut 
them  off.  And  to  do  also  as  he  did  in  Feb- 
ruary of  that  same  year,  cut  a  man  off  from 
the  church  for  that  same  crime,  publicly 
and  fearlessly. 

In  connection  with  Elder  Z.  H.  Gurley  of 
Iowa,  I  met  this  question  of  the  origin  of 
polygamy  among  the  Latter  Day  Saints  be- 
fore the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  during  the  first  session 
of  the  47th  Congress,  and  we  were  able 
there,  and  in  our  "memorial,"  and  "argu- 
ment," presented  to  the  President  and  each 
Senator  and  Representative,  to  maintain 
our  case  in  opposition  to  those  versed  in  the 
theory  of  those  people  who  believe  in  poly- 
gamy ;  and  do  you  think  I  could  not  sustain 
my  position  here? 

Mr.  Bradeu  :  Do  it,  do  it. 

Mr.  Kelley  :  I  am  ready  and  prepared  to 
do  it  if  you  'wish  to  take  up  that  question. 
But  I  shall  not  leave  the  question  now  un- 
der consideration  to  do  it.  I  am  in  the 
affirmative  here. 

Suppose  that  Mr.  Smith  did  have  more 
wives  than  one,  what  has  what  he  did,  after 
the  oublication  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  to 
do  with  the  question  of  whether  it  is  true 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


209 


or  not?  There  is  no  dispute  by  anybody  of 
the  fact  that  his  first,  and  as  we  claim  his 
only  marriage,  took  place  in  the  year  1827, 
the  same  year  he  began  the  translation  of 
which  this  book  is  the  result.  He  was  then 
but  twenty-one  years  of  age.  But  further, 
I  open  the  Book  of  Mormon  here  at  page 
116,  and  read  as  follows  : 

"For  behold,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  this  people  [the 
ancient  Inhabitants]  begin  to  wax  in  iniquity;  they 
understand  not  the  scriptures,  for  they  seek  to  excuse 
themselves  in  committing  whoredoms,  because  of  the 
things  which  were  written  concerning  David  and  Solo- 
mon, his  son.  Behold,  David  and  Solomon  truly  had 
many  wives  and  concubines,  which  thing  was  abom- 
inable before  me,  saith  the  Lord ;  wherefore,  thus  saith 
the  Lord,  I  have  led  this  people  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Jerusalem,  by  the  power  of  mine  arm,  that  I  might 
raise  up  unto  me  a  righteous  brunch  from  the  fruit  of 
the  loins  of  Joseph.  [Joseph  in  Egypt.]  Wherefore  I, 
the  Loid  God,  will  not  suffer  that  this  people  shall  do 
like  unto  them  of  old.  Wherefore  my  brethren,  hear 
me,  and  hearken  to  the  word  of  the  Lord :  for  there  shall 
not  any  man  among  you  have,  save  it  be  one  wife,  and 
concubines  he  shall  have  none:  For  I,  the  Lord  God, 
dclighteth  in  the  chastity  of  women  and  whoredoms 
are  an  abomination  before  me:  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  " 

Polygamy  then  is  clearly  condemned  by 
this  book  under  discussion. 

I  open  to  other  works  of  the  church  and 
I  find  that  it  is  absolutely  denounced ;  and  I 
fail  to  find  a  single  word,  scratch  of  the  pen, 
or  fully  established  act  of  Joseph  Smith,  in 
any  place  during  his  life,  where  he  ever  in 
any  manner  or  way  approved  or  counten- 
anced in  any  form  at  any  time  a  sentiment 
or  thought  contrary  to,  or  in  disregard  of, 
the  veritable  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  upon 
the  sacred  rite  of  marriage,  wherein  he 
says:  "Have  ye  not  read,  that  he  which 
made  them  at  the  beginning  made  them 
male  and  female;  and  for  this  cause  shall 
a  man  leave  father  and  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife  ;  and  they  twain  shall  be 
one  flesh."  Matt.  19:4,  5. 

Some  pretend  to  believe  that  he  practiced 
polygamy  privately;  but  after  a  careful  and 
candid  examination  of  what  they  have 
claimed  as  evidences  for  this,  I  have  found 
that  they  have  invariably  fallen  far  short 
of  what  would  honestly  be  called,  under 
the  laws  of  evidence,  proofs.  Whereas,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  have  also  noticed  that  the 
claim  has  either  been  made  by  persons  who 
would  like  to  have  it  so,  in  order  to  ( in  a 
manner)  excuse  their  own  evil  practices,  or 
by  those  who  desired  it  BO,  in  order  that 
they  might  have  a  weapon  with  which  to 
assail  the  faith  of  the  Saints. 

Then  there  is  no  foundation  for,  or  reason 
In  any  shape  why  Mr.  Bradeu  should  make 
his  polygamic  assault  here  to  claim  my 
attention. 

Now  there  have  been  a  great  many  stories 
told  here  by  him ;  and  a  great  many  things 
asserted  and  reasserted  with  regard  to 
character,  and  he  has  jumped  from  one 
conclusion  to  another,  in  order  to  dodge  the 
real  question  at  issue,  prejudice  your 
minds,  and  save  his  failing  cause.  But  in 
fact  he  has  only  succeeded  in  proving  one 
instance  to  this  audience  as  yet,  to  show 
that  there  has  been  lying  and  stealing 
going  on,  as  he  has  charged ;  and  that  was 
the  instance  where  he  proved  that  his 


Campbellite  Minister,  whom  he  put  upon 
the  stand  (  Mr.  Moss  )  stole  a  revelation 
from  Martin  Harris'  Hat.  (  Applause.) 

When  my  time  was  called  I  was  discuss- 
ing the  manner  of  honorable  debate  and 
showing  you  how  persons  might  lespect- 
fully  prove  or  disprove  the  claims  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  or  any  other  work  making 
a  claim  to  inspiration.  Showing  that  these 
things  are  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
people : 

First:  In  the  form  or  character  of  signed 
statements,  or  petitions  which  are  properly 
used  to  set  forth  the  truth  of  a  matter,  and 
when  in  harmony  with  established  rules 
may  be  said  to  establish  a  primes  facie  case. 
This  is  not  such  a  class  of  evidence  howev- 
er, as  will  enter  with  any  degree  of  force  in 
determining  the  truth  of  a  matter  at  issue. 

Second.  The  evidence  to  be  afterwards  in- 
troduced to  prove  the  case  set  forth  in  these 
statements,  or  duly  prepared  petitions. 
The  joined  issue  is  ascertained  by  an  exam- 
ination of  the  points  in  these  orderly  state- 
ments. The  positions  taken  and  the  claims 
made  by  the  parties.  But,  in  this  discus- 
sion, my  opponent  has  tried  to  make  the  is- 
sue upon  the  characters  of  the  signers ; 
which  position  I  have  certainly  proved  can- 
not be  tolerated  under  the  divine  rule,  as  it 
makes  no  difference  in  the  argument  wheth- 
er a  man  comes  from  the  mean  city  of  Naz- 
areth, is  called  a  "wine  bibber,  "glutton- 
ous," "stirer  up  of  sedition,"  or  a  "deceiv- 
er," the  rule  is:  "If  I  say  the  truth  why 
do  you  not  believe?"  Never  mind  if  they 
do  say  I  am  the  carpenter's  son,  and  Mary 
is  my  mother,  and  Joses  and  Simon,  and 
Judas  and  James  are  my  brothers  ;  nor 
whether  I  eat  with  "publicans  and  sinners," 
or  wash  before  or  after  eating.  "Which  of 
you  convinceth  me  of  sin,"  (by  the  word.) 
"He  that  is  of  God  heareth,  (receiveth, 
abideth  in,  judgeth  by,)  God's  word." 

But  aside  from  this  I  told  you  from  the 
outset  of  this  discussion  that  I  offered  the 
statements  signed  by  these  witnesses  for 
the  purpose  of  setting  forth  the  object, 
character,  and  claims  of  the  work,  under 
the  rule  requiring  me  to  present  my  case.  I 
showed  in  this  way  that  I  had  upon  all 
points  complied  with  the  law  in  this  regard 
and  then  proceeded  to  bring  the  evidence  as 
provided  in  the  law  to  prove  my  case. 

There  were  three  ways  in  which  I  could 
do  this,  and  prove  it  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt;  I  could  follow  one  or  all;  but  if  I 
proved  it  in  either  way,  I  would  be  entitled 
to  the  verdict,  which  would  be,  that  the 
Book  of  Mormon  is  of  divine  origin,  and  its 
teachings  are  entitled  to  the  respect  and 
belief  of  all  Christian  people. 

1.  By  the  internal  evidences  of  the  book 
itself.  Examining  them  under  the  rule  in 
the  constitutional  and  accepted  standard, 
the  Bible:  "Whosoever  transgresseth 
and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
hath  not  God.  He  that  abideth  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and 
the  8011.  If  there  come  any  unto  you  and 
bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  in- 
to your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed." 


210 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


From  the  first  I  read  copiously  from  the 
Book  of  Mormon  to  show  that  in  doctrine 
and  teaching  it  was  absolutely  in  harmony 
with  the  New  Testament,  and  that  whoso- 
ever in  faith  and  doctrme  was  a  believer  in 
the  principals  taught  in  the  Bible,  was  al- 
ready a  believer  m  the  doctrine  and  faith 
set  forth  in  this  book.  Further  I  affirmed 
that  the  sentiments  which  I  read  were  in 
perfect  harmony  and  keeping  with  all  oth- 
er sentiments  contained  in  the  Book  and 
held  out  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice ; 
and  called  upon  my  opponent  to  produce  a 
single  paragraph  of  bad  instruction  contain- 
ed in  the  book  if  he  could.  What  was  his 
answer  to  these  proofs?  "Impostor  Joe," 
and  a  "set  of  rascals."  "Mormon  ism,  and  the 
Mormon  Deity,"  "We  have  all  the  revela- 
tion God  ever  intended  the  world  should 
have  in  the  Bible."  We  think  God  spoke 
to  Peter  and  Paul,  but  as  for  t'his  book  we 
don't  want  it.  Just  because !  That  has 
been  his  strongest  argument  all  the  way 
through  the  entire  ten  evenings.  Then 
when  this  was  stale  he  referred  you  to  what 
Aaron  Wright  said  what  he  heard  read 
twenty  years  before  he  said  it.  And.  ditto, 
Henry  Lake,  John  Miller,  et  al,  in  Howe's 
book,  beautifully  closing  the  argument  with 
"and  it  came  to  pass." 

2.  The  second  way  in  which  I  could  under 
the  law  prove  my  case  was  by  taking  the 
things  written  in  the  lav?  prophetically,  and 
prove  my  claim  by  comparing  it  with  the 
prophetic  utterances,  and  if  the  book  in  its 
object   and   char»cter    was   in    agreement 
with  them,  and  no  other  reasonable  inter- 
pretation of  these  prophecies  was  adverse, 
I  would  be  entitled  to  a  judgment  of  having 
sustained  the  question  upon  that. 

I  cited  these  prophecies  and  showed  their 
fulfilment,  and  that  thebo:k  was  well  for- 
tified with  these  from  Gent  sis  to  the  Apoc- 
alypse, a  summary  of  which  I  will  give  you 
this  evening,  and  he  answered  me  with  "the 
Koran  will  apply  as  well  to  the  passages." 
And  then  it  was  Sidney  Rigdon,  and  again 
the  character  of  the  witnesses  to  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  and  the  Spaulding  story." 
What  had  all  of  this  to  do  with  my  argu- 
ment upon  the  prophecies?  I  was  not  ask- 
ing him  to  take  what  the  witnesses  said 
abuut  it.  I  only  offered  them  as  the  signers 
to  a  respectable  paper  showing  that  I  had  a 
prima  facie  case.  What  has  he  to  say  about 
the  evidences  I  bring  from  the  prophecies 
in  support  of  the  work  ?  "If  you  believe  in 
Moses  and  the  prophets  ye  would  believe  in 
me,  for  they  wrote  of  me."  This  is  the  po- 
sition of  the  Savior  upon  the  question  of  how 
to  test  a  case  by  the  prophecies.  My  claim 
here  and  the  claim  of  the  Saints  for  this 
book  is  strictly  in  harmony  with  this  in- 
struction of  Jesus  and  it  should  be  so  exam- 
ined:— Moses  and  the  prophets,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  and  some  of  the  apostles  spoke  and 
wrote  of  it. 

3.  The  third  line  of  proof  was  by  the 
prophetic  evidence  contained  in  the  book 
Itself  and  demonstrated  to  be  such  :— 

First.  By  showing  that  the  statements 
made  in  the  record  of  the  habitation,  char- 


acter, condition,  nativity,  enlijarhtenmant 
and  final  termination  of  the  ancient  races 
of  man  (and  in  many  instances  of  classes 
of  animals),  of  the  continent  were  such  that 
if  true,  the  work  must  be  of  a  divine  ori- 
gin, for  when  published  a  knowledge  of 
these  things  had  not  been  attained  by  the 
world.  This  could  be  attested  by  the  intro- 
duction of  such  evidences  as  have,  since  the 
publication  of  the  book,  been  brought  to- 
light  through  research  and  discovery. 

Second.  By  the  occurrence  of  certain  re- 
markable events  in  fulfillment  of  prophetic 
statements  made  in  the  book,  and  which 
have  taken  place  within  the  knowledge  of 
the  people  since  the  publication.  To  sub- 
stantiate this  I  presented  the  attested 
greatness  of  the  ancient  civilizations  of 
America  by  their  works,  monuments  and 
ruined  palaces  and  cities,  discovered  and 
explored  since  the  publication  of  the  Boo.k 
of  Mormon.  And  secondly,  gave  the  his- 
tory and  narration  of  certain  things  which 
had  occurred  in  fulfillment  of  predictions 
in  the  book,  showing  that  as  predicted 
therein  on  page  103,  tne  blood  of  the  Saints 
had  gone  up  into  the  ears  of  the  Lord  of 
Sabaoth  in  the  diabolical  butchery  of  their 
men,  women  and  children  in  Missouri  and 
Illinois  ;  that  the  devouring  fire,  and  fierce 
and  vivid  lightnings,  earthquakes,  and 
smoke  in  foreign  lands,  so  as  to  crimson  the 
rays  of  the  suu  itself,  had  taken  place  as 
foretold  by  one  of  the  prophets  on  page  496  ; 
that  the  book  from  the  first  had  been  fought 
as  and  called  a  Bible  by  its  enemies  as  pre- 
dicted in  it  on  page  105  ;  that  the  historical 
early  and  latter  rains  had  returned  to  re- 
freshen and  bless  Palestine,  and  prepare 
for  Israel's  return  there  soon  after  its  pub- 
lication, as  foretold  on  pages  102  and  107; 
that  the  peculiar  work  of  the  cyclone  had 
taken  place  to  the  astonishment  of  all  peo- 
ple, as  declared  in  the  book  in  the  figure  of 
the  "tempest,"  and  many  other  predictions 
and  the  fulfillment  that  I  might  name. 

To  all  of  this  what  has  been  his  answer? 

1.  That  Joseph  Smith  could  have  gained 
this  knowledge  of  the  habitation,  greatness 
and  civilizations  from  things  already  known, 
to  the  world  of  the  antiquities  of  America, 
and  as  a  proof,  cited  Priest's  work  that  was 
published  before  the  Book  of  Mormon,  he 
said.  I  took  his  (Priest's)  work,  and  showed 
that  what  he  had  cited  you  as  a  prior  pub- 
lication of  Mr.  Priest  was  not  a  work  upon 
antiquities  at  all,  but  a  book  of  tales  entit- 
led, "The  Wonders  of  Nature  and  Provi- 
dence." He  made  a  great  display  of  the 
names  of  authors  Priest  quoted  from,  men- 
tioning Boudinot,  Edwards,  Elliot,  Cotton 
Mather,  et  al. ;  but  failed  to  read  to  you  a 
single  thing  these  men  had  said  upon  the 
subject;  and,  indeed,  they  had  said  nothing 
except  as  to  enter  their  speculations  upon 
the  subject  of  whether  the  American  In- 
dians? were  the  descendants  of  the  "lost 
tribes  of  Israel."  I  had  preceded  him,  how- 
ever, in  this,  showing  there  were  such  spec- 
ulations ;  but  what  had  all  this  to  do  with 
the  great  civilizations,  works  of  art,  loca- 
tion of  cities,  skill  and  mechanism,  towering 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


211 


<liff  dwellings  and  cities,  and  the  grand, 
enlightened  and  populous  nations  described 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  since  verified  by 
discovery?  I  asked  him.  And  so  far  as  an- 
swering is  concerned  he  has  sat  dumb  and 
speechless  throughout  the  ten  evenings. 
But  he  could  talk  about  Solomon  Spauld- 
ing,  Mrs.  Duulap,  Dr.  Winters,  Alexander 
Campbell  and  Pomeroy  Tucker,  and  try  to 
villify  Sidney  Rigdon  and  others. 

But  again,  I  pointed  him  to  the  prophe- 
cies in  the  book  and  their  fulfillment,  and 
he  could  only  cry,  "Impostor  Joe,"  "Sally 
Chase,"  "Money  digger,"  and  "such  abom- 
inable trash  and  stuff." 

What  had  all  of  this  to  do  as  to  whether 
these  prophecies  had  actually  been  fulfilled 
or  not?  I  refer  to  his  kind  of  weapons  and 
methods  of  warfare  to  show  you  how  he  has 
effectually  escaped  making  an  argument 
touching  the  issue.  The  book  is  here,  and 
the  question  presented  for  proof  under  the 
agreed  standard  between  us  ( the  Bible)  is, 
Does  it  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  law? 
He  has  only  referred  to  this,  however,  by 
asserting  that  not  one  of  the  prophecies 
apply.  But  my  judgment  is  that  they  do 
apply,  and  I  have  given  you  my  reasons  for 
applying  them  and  claimed  that  they  can 
be  properly  applied  to  nothing  else,  and  the 
time  is  past  for  the  fulfillment  of  many.  He 
has  stood  before  you  under  the  name  of  a 
theologian  and  has  not  even  dared  to  take  a 
position  as  to  what  they  did  refer  to,  lest  he 
be  caught.  He  told  you  some  person  in 
London  applied  some  of  them  in  one  way, 
and  Mahomet  applied  some  in  another  ;  but 
when  I  ask  him  to  examine  them  and  meet 
the  issue  here,  he  goes  back  to  hurling 
epithets  at  the  witnesses  to  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  who  are  called  for  au  entirely 
different  purpose. 

I  took  up  the  other  line  open  to  me  and 
showed  that  the  statements  made  in  the 
work  upon  the  ancient  state  and  civilization 
of  the  continent  as  developed  by  writings 
within  the  past  fifty  years  were  corrobora- 
tive, and  convincing  of  the  truth  of  the 
work;  and  he  at  once  takes  the  ground 
that  all  this  development  in  the  ancient 
civilization  is  but  a  reproduction  of  what 
was  known  before  the  publication  of  the 
book. 

The  finding  of  the  fossil  remains  of  the 
animals  which  had  ceased  to  exist  when 
America  was  discovered  by  Columbus,  and 
which  were  not  known  to  have  existed  upon 
the  continent  till  after  the  publication  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  I  am  referred  to 
Cortez'  invasion  of  Mexico,  where  he  found 
the  people  in  such  a  state  of  barbarism  that 
they  were  sacrificing  human  lives  to  gods 
made  with  their  hands  for  a  solution.  To 
the  march  of  Pizarro  in  Peru,  who  met  with 
the  Incas  in  their  rudeness ;  but  was  this 
an  indication  that  two  highly  cultivated  and 
civilized  peoples  had  lived  and  died  in  these 
very  countries?  No,  sir;  nor  has  such  a 
deduction  ever  been  made  from  the  then 
condition  of  the  peoples.  The  facts  of  these 
great  civilizations  arise  from  the  researches 
among  their  ruins.  Before,  it  was  only  a 


speculation  as  to  whether  the  Aztecs  and 
Toltecs  and  Incas,  or  either  of  them,  had 
ever  been  a  civilized  and  enlightened  people. 
It  was  on ly  ascertai ned  by  explorers  through 
the  distinct  character  of  the  sculpture  and 
paintings,  roadways,  and  ruined  palaces 
and  temples,  and  buried  cities,  that  these 
three  distinct;  civilized  peoples  had  existed 
here,  the  discoveries  of  which  were  sub- 
sequent to  the  published  record  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  Then  he  goes  back  again 
to  his  tub  of  vilification  and  slander,  and 
attacks  the  witnesses  offered  to  make  the 
prima  facie  case.  But  what  of  the  main 
evidence?  Not  in  the  ieast  referred  to  by 
him.  Suppose  our  case  was  before  a  court 
in  the  shape  of  written  pleadings  and 
signed.  There  we  would  respectively  pre- 
sent our  cases  as  we  have  presented  them 
here.  As  the  one  affirming,  I  begin  and 
introduce  my  evidence  to  prove  my  case,  as. 
set  out  in  my  pleading,  and  rest.  My 
opponent,  when  his  time  conies,  instead  of 
introducing  evidence  on  his  side,  contents 
himself  by  vilifying  the  signers  to  my  peti- 
tion which  I  have  never  introduced  to  prove 
the  main  issue.  I  would  go  on  and  prove 
my  case,  and  my  opponent  would  content 
himself  with  an  attack  upon  these  same 
witnesses.  The  result  would  be  that  at  the 
close  of  the  trial  he  would  find  himself 
sitting  with  his  chair  from  under  him. 

Now  look  at  the  kind  of  proof  for  the 
Spaulding  story  from  this  standpoint  of  the 
evidence.  He  first  introduces  his  witnesses 
to  make  his  prima  facie  case,  viz :  to  show 
that  Spaulding  wrote  a  manuscript.  That 
is  all  right ;  they  can  do  that  by  their  mere 
statements  or  affidavits.  But  when  he 
comes  to  his  main  case  he  has  only  these 
same  statements — only  this  and  nothing 
more;  and  he  introduces  these  same  state- 
ments to  show  what  was  in  the  manuscript 
they  say  was  written,  and  they  burn  the 
manuscript  itself.  Can  you  swallow  their 
story,  then?  All  of  his  statements  and 
affidavits  have  first  gone  through  the  hands 
of  Howe,  who  I  have  shown  you  so  fully 
(that  even  Braden  has  not  denied  it),  filched 
and  garbled  from  our  books  to  try  to  make 
his  points.  Were  the  statements  clean 
then,  after  having  passed  through  this 
sickening  sewer?  Who  will  say  that  they 
were?  Then  we  were  told  that  the  Whit- 
mers  and  Harris  and  Smith  expected  to 
make  money  out  of  this  thing.  The  lie  is 
given  to  it  from  the  very  first  by  the  public 
writings.  They  were  distinctly  told  as 
early  as  1823  that  they  should  not  make 
money  out  of  it,  and  that  was  published 
and  of  record  from  the  first.  Why  should 
these  plain,  published  facts  be  contradicted 
by  his  witnesses  of  easy  reputations?  And 
why  should  he  continually  harp  on  charac- 
ter? Is  his  faith  so  based  upon  frail  hu- 
manity that  he  judges  mine  to  be?  He  has 
examined  into  the  private  lives  of  these 
men  as  though  he  expected  we  were  to  be 
saved  through  or  by  their  acts.  What  has 
their  acts  to  do  with  our  faith?  Does  he 
violate  respect  of  Jesus'  unblemished  life 
by  pretending  to  compare  the  wayward  lif» 


212 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


of  mankind  with  it?  Of  any  person?  Does 
not  Jesus  stand  out  alone  the  model  and 
pattern  in  life  to  the  children  ?  Do  we  take 
any  of  the  apostles'  or  prophets'  private 
lives  as  an  example  to  model  after,  except 
so  far  as  they  followed  Christ?  Oh  no,  the 
8aints  do  not;  but  my  opponent's  ire  has 
been  aroused;  it  is  "  war  to  the  knife,  and 
the  knife  to  the  hilt "  with  him  ;  and  he  will 
open  his  mind  and  heart  to  nothing  good 
unless  it  perchance  comes  through  the  small 
glasses  through  which  his  vision  is  alone 
lighted.  Man  can  never  reach  truth  in 
any  sense  by  such  a  course,  and  I  advise 
him  to  change,  and  now.  ;  . 

SUMMARY. 

In  conclusion,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I 
shall  now  briefly  summarize  the  arguments 
adduced  in  the  investigation  of  the  propo- 
sition, as  I  have  contrasted  the  proofs  of 
both  the  affirmative  and  the  negative,  and 
the  methods  pursued  by  each  in  the  exami- 
nation of  evidence.  I  showed  to  you  : 

First,  That  the  standard  by  which  men 
and  revelations  are  to  be  tried,  and  their 
teachings  and  claims  to  divinity  deter- 
mined, is  the  doctrine  and  words  of  Jesus 
and  his  servants,  viz:  "to  the  law  and  the 
testimony." 

This  is  the  advice  of  the  prophet  Isaiah 
to  the  people  when  testing  the  teachings  of 
the  professors  of  his  time.  Not  by  their 
pretended  supernatural  works,  their  char- 
acters, or  the  lies  told  about  them.  Isaiah 
8:20.  Jesus  submits  this  same  rule  to  the 
hypocritical  Jews  as  the  one  holy  and  just, 
as  the  rule  by  which  he  would  submit  and 
be  tried  as  to  his  claims  when  they  would 
fain  attack  his  character ;  submitting  that 
"He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God's  words. 
Ye  therefore  hear  them  not,  because  ye  are 
not  of  God."  John  8:47.  "Whosoever 
transgresseth  and  abideth  not  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  hath  not  God.  He  that 
abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son."  2  John,  9th 
verse. 

Second.  By  this  DIVINR  rule,  I  showed 
that  the  writings  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
must  be  tried,  and  its  claims  to  a  divine  ori- 

2 in  must  be  determined.  By  this  rule  the 
ook  stands  approved,  its  teachings  being 
In  strict  harmony  with  those  of  Christ,  the 
prophets,  and  apostles,  as  attest  the  con- 
tents of  the  volume  entire — and  as  proof  of 
which,  I  cited  certain  passages  found  on 
pages  99,  par.  16,  224,  par.  4,  242,  par.  4,  and 
249,  par.  8,  and  which  were  cited  as  but  re- 
flecting the  sentiment  of  the  book  through- 
out. By  the  Bible,  therefore  the  claims  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon  to  a  divine  originupon 
a  doctrinal  basis  are  found  to  be  true. 

Third.  The  avowed  object  of  the  book  in 
its  being  brought  to  light  to  convince  the 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Savior  ;as  witness  the  preface  of 
the  work,  and  pages  441,  and  290,  read  the 
first  evening,  is  a  good  one  and  in  harmony 
with  the  Bible.  By  the  voice  of  two  or 
three  witnesses  shall  every  world  be  estab- 
lished. 
fourth.  I  also  presented  as  bearing  upon 


the  investigation  of  this  question,  the  great 
and  divine  truth,  enunciated  by  the  apostle 
Paul  and  Peter,  that  God  created  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  and  determined  the 
bounds  of  their  habitation,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  being  sought  after,  felt  after  and 
being  found  of  them.  And  the  only  way 
any  nation  has  been  able  as  yet  to  really 
find  him,  is  by  seeking  him  throng h  the  reve- 
lation he  has  given  to  them.  They  could 
only  work  righteousness  to  acceptance  with 
him  by  conforming  to  the  law  of  righteous- 
ness, (the  gospel,)  as  it  is  therein  that  his 
righteousness  is  revealed.  See  Acts  17  :  26 
— 27  ;  10 :  34,  35.  Evidence  does  appear  both 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  in  the  accounts 
of  modern  scientific  investigation,  and  ar- 
chaeological discoveries  on  the  American 
continent,  showing  that  the  ancient  inhabi- 
tants of  this  continent  knew  of  and  worship- 
ed God,  and  therefore  the  claims  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  to  containing  a  record  of 
the  gospel  as  revealed  to  the  ancient  inhab- 
itants of  this  continent  is  both  scriptural 
and  reasonable.  This  great  fact  is  of  impor- 
tance in  this  controversy,  illustrating  the 
thought,  that  He  who  Scattered  the  people 
from  the  Tower  of  Babel,  abroad  "upon  the 
facejof all  the  earth,"  (ana  hence  some  were 
brought  to  the  Western  continent,)  &s  Is  af- 
firmed by  the  Bible  and  twice  staled  in 
Genesis,  chapter  11,  versus  8  and  9,  left 
them  not  without  providing  for  tboi)  moral 
and  spiritual  welfare.  This  the  Book  of 
Mormon  teaches  regarding  the  Joredites 
who  journeyed  to  this  land  from  the  tower, 
and  were  blessed  here  with  a  irevelatJoD  of 
God's  will  to  them — and  here  again  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Bi  ble  agree  in 
thought. 

Fifth.  The  Book  of  Mormon  teaches  that 
the  branches  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  of  Egypt 
emigrated  to  this  continent  about  600  yoars 
before  Christ,  and  here  became  a  grsat  peo- 
ple, and  were  blessed  with  manifestations 
of  God's  will.  To  this  agree  the  prophetic 
blessings  of  Jacob  upon  the  sons  of  Joseph, 
Manasseh  and  Ephrahn,  when  blessing 
them  concerning  things  to  come.  He  pre- 
dicted they  should  become  "a  multitude  in 
the  midst  of  the  earth,"  geographically  lo- 
cating them  on  this  continent  when  taking 
our  stand  in  Egypt,  and  extending  our 
measure  to  "  the  midst  of  the  earth."  Not 
only  this,  but  the  descendants  of  Joseph 
alone  were  to  become  a  multitude  of  na- 
tions, whereas  the  entire  twelve  tribes  be- 
came but  two  nations,  so  far  as  the  Bible 
informs  us,  on  the  Eastern  continent.  Gen. 
48:14-19.  On  this  continent  the  multitude 
of  nations  is  fully  represented  in  the  abo- 
rigines, and  in  the  different  nationalities 
congregated  here  since  the  time  of  the  dis- 
covery. And  the  Bible  bears  out  the  Book 
of  Mormon  in  its  claims  again. 

Sixth.  In  Genesis,  chapter  49 : 21-26,  Jacob 
blesses  Joseph  with  a  land  situated  beyond 
the  sea,  or  "over  the  wall,"  and  to  which 
Joseph's  descendants  were  to  emigrate; 
and  not  only  this,  but  this  landed  blessing 
prophetically  given  to  Joseph  was  to  far 
exceed  i,i  geographical  boundaries  and  ex- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELI  EY  DEBATE. 


213 


tent  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  land  of  Jacob's 
progenitors  ;  for  he  said,  "  The  blessings  of 
thy  father  have  prevailed  above  the  bless- 
ings of  my  progenitors,  unto  the  utmost 
bound  of  the  everlasting  hills.  They  shall 
be  on  the  head  of  Joseph,  and  on  the  crown 
of  the  head  of  him  that  was  separated  from 
his  brethren." 

Moses  also,  when  blessing  the  tribes  of 
Israel  for  the  last  time,  marks  Joseph  dis- 
tinctly with  a  landed  estate  that  in  none  of 
its  leading  characteristics  refers  to  their 
little  portion  of  Palestine :  A  land  blessed 
with  the  deep  that  coucheth  beneath  ;  great 
inland  seas  or  lakes  of  fresh  water ;  the 
precious  things  of  its  everlasting  mountains 
and  its  noted  hills,  the  ores  and  minerals  of 
which  Canaan  is  devoid  ;  the  great  variety 
of  fruits,  indicative  of  varieties  of  tempera- 
ture, which  was  not  true  of  Joseph's  little 
portion  in  Palestine.  But  the  laud  of  Amer- 
ica fills  this  prophetic  description  of  Moses 
to  the  very  letter,  thus  confirming  the  Book 
of  Mormon  in  its  claims  that  Joseph's  de- 
scendants came  and  inherited  this  land 
anciently. 

In  the  history  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  I 
showed  to  you  that  two  companies  of  Israel- 
ites came  to  the  continent,  one  landing  upon 
the  western  coast  of  South  America  and 
the  other  in  Yucatan,  and  that  afterwards 
these  peoples  were  united.  From  the  dis- 
coveries and  explorations  since  made,  I 
showed  you  that  this  was  corroborated  in 
the  fact  that  the  cities  builded  in  Yucatan 
were  quite  different  from  those  builded  by 
the  Jaredites  in  other  parts  of  Central 
America.  That  such  a  people  did  exist  is 
proven  also  by  Mr.  Short,  pages  436  and  438, 
where  he  says  they  still  preserve  in  history 
the  word  "Muloc,"  and  as  used  by  them  it 
means  "union."  The  Mulockites  of  this 
part  of  Central  America  were  the  very  peo- 
ple the  Book  of  Mormon  says  united  with 
the  people  of  Nephi ;  and  to  maintain  that 
the  evidence  from  the  explorer  and  linguist 
is  corroborative  of  the  narrative  in  the  book, 
is  entirely  reasonable  and  legitimate. 

Seventh.  1  showed  you  that  the  fact  that 
Ephraim  should  be  hidden,  mixed  and  un- 
identified with  the  people,  until  one  should 


stand  up  with  the  Urim  and  Thummim  t<? 
declare  him  was  entirely  scriptural :  and 
the  fact  that  the  one  who  translated  the 
record  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  had  this  in- 
strument by  which  the  positive  light  was 
turned  upon  the  prophetically  first  born  of 
Joseph  in  pushing  the  work  of  gospel 
progress,  in  the  last  days,  was  a  convincing 
evidence  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  its 
agreement  with  the  Bible. 

Eighth.  That  the  people  to  whom  Jesus 
referred  in  John  10:16  were  emphatically  of 
Israel,  and  that  they  did  hear  his  voice 
and  were  those  whose  record  we  have  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon. 

Ninth.  That  the  "ensign  to  be  lifted  up" 
in  Isaiah  18;  the  message  represented  by 
the  writing  upon  the  stick  of  Joseph  in  the 
37th  chapter  of  Ezekiel;  "the  book,"  which 
was  to  contain  the  doctrine  of  Christ  set 
forth  in  the  29th  of  Isaiah,  and  the  "gos- 
pel," which  John  witnessed  committed  by 
the  angel  in  Revelations  14:6,  all  pointed  to 
the  culmination  of  a  certain  thing,  and  the 
inauguration  of  the  same  work,  at  a  time 
in  the  world's  history,  "just  afore  the  har- 
vest," when  "Lebanon  "was  to  be  turned 
into  a  fruitful  field,"  "in  the  hour  of  his 
[God's]  judgment,  in  the  time  when  the 
"Son  of  man  shall  come;"  and  that  these 
prophetic  descriptions  are  fully  and  com- 
pletely answered  in  the  coming  forth,  ob- 
ject, character  and  work  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  and  that  it  is  therefore  a  light  in- 
deed to  the  people  and  the  precursor  of  the 
glory  of  Israel. 

Tenth.  That  the  work  was  not  to  com- 
mend itself  through  its  excellency  of  speech 
or  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  absolutely 
as  declared  by  the  prophet,  be  blessed  to 
those  who  should  seek  after  the  wisdom 
and  power  of  God ;  "for  the  wisdom  of  their 
wise  men  shall  perish  and  the  understand- 
ing of  their  prudent  men  shall  be  hid." 
Isaiah  29:14— all  of  which  is  fully  answered 
in  the  message  brought  by  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. 

(Time  called). 

I  thank  you,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  for 
your  patient  hearing.  (Applause). 


214 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S   CLOSING   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — The  proof  that  Impostor  Joe 
was  the  author  of  Mormon  polygamy  seems 
to  have  completely  unbalanced  my  oppo- 
nent. He  howled  and  ranted  and  talked 
against  time  till  his  chagrin,  anger  and 
evident  consciousness  of  defeat  were  piti- 
able. The  argument  is  this.  The  Re-orga- 
nized denounce  polygamy  as  from  the  devil. 
God  would  not  give  such  a  revelation.  If 
Joe  did  give  to  the  world  such  a  pretended 
revelation,  it  was  from  the  Devil  and  not 
the  A  Imighty ,  according  to  the  Re-organized 
themselves,  and  he  was  a  prophet  of  the 
Devil  and  not  of  the  Almighty.  We  take 
them  on  their  own  grounds.  We  presented 
the  testimony  of  William  Marks,  intimate 
with  Joe  and  high  in  authority  under  Joe, 
and  one  of  the  re-organizers  of  the  Re-organ- 
ized, one  of  their  founders  and  teachers,  one 
of  the  editors  Of  their  official  organ,  that 
when  the  power  and  influence  of  Joe  Smith 
was  omnipotent  among  the  Mormons  as 
their  prophet,  polygamy  prevailed  to  so 
fearful  an  extent  that  Marks  had  a  revela- 
tion that  the  only  way  to  purify  the  church 
was  to  utterly  dis-organize  it.  Also  that 
even  Joe  himself,  the  author  of  the  abomi- 
nation, was  alarmed,  and  said  thatpolygamy 
would  be  the  ruin  of  Mormonism.  This  was 
while  Smith  was  living  and  his  influence 
was  omnipotent.  Will  Kelley  deny  the 
statements  of  Marks,  one  of  the  founders  of 
his  re-organized  concern? 

We  read  the  declaration  of  Zenos  H. 
Gurley,  in  the  first  number  of  the  official 
organ  of  the  "Re-organized."  written  by 
Gurley,  one  of  the  editors,  and  one  who  was 
intimate  with  Smith  in  Nauvoo  and  who 
was  one  of  the  re-organizers  of  the  Re-organ- 
ized, one  of  the  founders  of  Kelley's  organi- 
zation, who  declares,  positively,  that  the 
Mormons  wanted  to  go  into  polygamy,  and 
that  Joe  gave  them  the  revelation,  and  that 
he  repented  of  the  iniquity  of  giving  this 
revelation  and  was  punished  for  it  by  a 
violent  death.  Will  my  opponent  deny  this 
statement?  We  presented  the  positive 
statement  of  Isaac  Sheen,  one  who  was 
intimate  with  Smith  and  knew  all  that 
transpired  behind  the  scenes  in  Nauvoo,  one 
of  the  re-organizers  of  the  Re- organized,  one 
of  the  editors  of  their  official  organ,  one  of 
the  founders  of  the  organization,  that  Smith 
was  the  author  of  that  abominable,  so-called 
revelation,  that  he  declared  himself  that  he 
was  the  author  of  it,  and  that,  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  practice  and  teaching  of  poly- 
gamy in  which  he  had  indulged,  ne  would 
not  have  been  involved  in  the  troubles  that 
cost  him  his  life.  Will  my  opponent  deny 
this  positive  testimony  of  three  of  the  re- 
organizers  of  the  Re-organized,  the  three 


editors  of  the  official  organ  of  his  organiza- 
tion, three  of  the  founders  of  his  so-called 
church  ?  Does  he  dare  attempt  it? 

His  appeals  to  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  amount  to 
nothing.  The  Book  of  Mormon  is  full  of  the 
anti-Rfasonic  rant  of  the  times  of  its  origin. 
Yet  Rigdon  and  Smith  afterwards  became 
Masons.  Joe  never  had  a  pretended  revela- 
tion that  he  could  not  contradict  by  another 
pretended  revelation.  We  have  proved 
that  from  infancy  he  was  a  notorious  liar. 
We  have  proved  that  he  and  his  confederates 
repeatedly  lied  in  denying  the  most  palpable 
facts.  Mormons  lied  for  years  in  denying 
that  spiritual  wifery  and  polygamy  were 
practised  and  taught  among  them,  when 
the  testimony  of  hundreds  of  persons  who 
saw  and  heard  it,  proved  that  they  were 
lying. 

The  facts  we  have  proved,  that  Smith 
advocated  polygamy  before  ne  left  New 
York,  that  he  tried  to  practice  it  in  Penn- 
sylvania, and  said  adultery  was  no  sin.  the 
declarations  of  Mormons  who  were  behind 
the  scenes  in  Kirtland,  that  he  practiced  it 
secretly  in  Kirtland,  that  he  practiced  it  in 
Missouri,  that  he  declared  in  Kirtland  that 
it  would  be  the  practice  of  Mormons,  his 
declarations  to  his  confederates  in  Missouri 
that  he  had  such  a  revelation,  his  practice 
of  it  in  Nauvoo,  teaching  it  extensively  in 
private,  his  taking  plural  wives,  as  the 
affidavits  of  such  wives  and  witnesses* 
prove,  his  performing  the  ceremony  for 
others ;  the  testimony  of  men  to  whom  he 
dictated  the  revelation,  of  the  one  who  took 
a  copy  from  this  original,  of  apostles  who 
passed  on  the  revelation  in  high  council, 
and  of  the  editors,  re-organizers,  founders  of 
the  Re-organized,  in  the  first  number  of  their 
official  organ,  render  Kelley's  attempted 
denial  brazen  in  effrontery,  and  idiotic  in 
its  worthlessness. 

In  his  attempt  to  reconcile  the  gross  con- 
tradictions in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  that  we 
exposed,  he  falsifies  its  statements.  The 
plates  of  Ether  which  Limbi  found,  were 
not  the  plates  of  Jared's  brother,  which 
were  not  to  go  forth  until  after  the  Gen- 
tiles were  converted.  He  did  not  explain 
how  any  Jaredite  plates  could  be  in  the 
keeping  of  King  Benjamin,  when  Mosiah, 
Benjamin's  son  and  successor,  did  not  ob- 
tain the  plates  until  after  Benjamin's  death, 
and  the  Nephites  did  not  know  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  plates,  or  the  people  who  had 
them,  until  after  Benjamin's  death.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  does  say,  in  so  many  words 
that  Coriantumr  died  among  the  subjects 
of  King  Zarahemla,  who  reigned  250  years 
before  Christ,  or  350  years  after  the  Neph- 
ites reached  America,  and  340  years  after 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


215 


the  Zarahemlites  reached  America;  or  at 
least  350  years  after  all  the  Jaredites,  except 
Coriantumr  were  slain.  Moroni  did  say  he 
could  write  no  more  for  his  plates  were  full, 
and  he  could  make  no  more  plates.  In 
representing  that  he  afterwards  wrote  the 
Jaredite  portion,  the  Book  of  Mormon  does 
make  him  write  on  uothing,  57  pages  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  Unfortunately  for  my 
opponent's  gabble  ahout  the  sticks  of  Eph- 
raim  and  Judah,  the  same  Hebrew  word 
means  "rod,"  "staff,"  "stick,"  "scepter." 
In  not  one  instance  are  rolls  or  books  called 
sticks.  Ezekiel  wrote  on  a  literal  stick,  as 
Aaron  wrote  on  a  literal  stick.  We  have 
several  times  proved  from  the  context  that 
his  long  string  of  prophecies  can  refer  only 
to  Israelites  on  the  old  continent,  and  not 
to  Israelites  in  America,  for  there  never 
were  any  such,  and  the  speakers  knew 
nothing  of  America.  We  have  several 
times  exploded  his  archaeological  stuff. 

If  any  one  will  compare  the  characters 
on  real  glyphs  with  Joe  Smith's  lying  pre- 
tended fac  simile  of  what  was  on  his  pre- 
tended plates,  he  can  see  the  difference  be- 
tween real  glyphs  and  a  clumsy  fraud  got- 
ten up  by  an  ignoramus. 

The  contradictions  in  Mormon  statements 
that  I  have  exposed,  I  quoted  from  Mormon 
books  themselves.  I  showed  that  Mormon 
statements  are  contradictory.  By  quoting 
from  Mormon  books  we  proved  that  Smith, 
Harris,  Whitmer,  Cowdry  and  others 
flatly  contradicted  themselves.  In  the  same 
statement  of  Whitmer  that  Kelley  read  a 
portion  of,  are  silly  yarns  about  angels 
plowing  seven  acres  of  land,  sowing  eleven 
acres  of  plaster,  old  Maroni  trudging  along 
side  of  Whitmer's  wagon,  lugging  the 
plates,  and  sweating  like  an  old  tramp. 
The  silly  lies  of  Whitmer,  Harris,  Smith 
and  Moroni  destroy  their  testimony.  Kelley 
says  Whitmer  is  a  most  estimable  man.  I 
read  from  his  own  copy  of  the  Mormon  offi- 
cial organ,  the  "Times  and  Seasons,11  the 
statement  of  Smith  that  he  was  an  ass 
braying  out  cursings,  and  was  cut  off  from 
the  church  for  lying,  slander  and  plotting 
robbery  and  murder.  We  read  an  official 
document  issued  by  Rigdon  and  83  Mormon 
officials,  their  highest  officials,. that  he  was 
guilty  of  lying,  stealing,  counterfeiting, 
and  was  a  blackleg  of  the  blackest  dye. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  declares  that  the 
plates  were  engraved  by  divine  command, 
by  the  gift  of  God,  translated  by  the  gift  of 
God,  and  the  witnesses  declare  that  God 
told  them  the  translation  was  correct,  yet 
the  Mormon  Deity  had  to  correct  5000  blun- 
ders !  1 

CONCLUDING  SUMMARY. 

The  issues  in  this  debate  have  been  :  I. 
Did  mankind  need  new  revelations  in  addi- 
tion to  those  in  the  Scriptures,  when  Joseph 
Smith  pretended,  in  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  other  pretended  revelations,  to  give  to 
the  world  new  revelations,  in  addition  to 
those  in  the  Bible  ?  II.  Was  Joseph  Smith 
a  true  prophet  of  God?  III.  Did  Joseph 
Smith,  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  other 
professed  revelations,  give  to  the  world  new 


revelations,  in  addition  to  those  in  the  Bible? 
We  have  been  agreed  :  1.  That  man  needs 
a  revelation  of  religion  and  morals.  2.  That 
it  should  be  given  by  inspiration  of  chosen 
men.  3.  That  inspiration  and  revelation 
should  be  attended  and  attested  by  signs, 
wonders  and  superhuman  powers.  4.  That 
the  Bible  is  a  revelation  given  by  inspira- 
tion, attended  by  signs,  superhuman  pow- 
ers. 5.  That  these  superhuman  powers  did 
benevolent  work  for  man  while  attesting 
inspiration  and  revelation.  6.  That  they 
combatted  evil  superhuman  powers,  and 
enabled  man  to  overcome  them.  7.  That 
they  aided  and  directed  man  in  matters  in- 
cidentally connected  with  the  development 
of  the  revelation  of  truth  recorded  in  the 
Bible.  8.  That  they  developed  and  culti- 
vated his  spiritual  nature.  We  haveagreed 
in  this  concerning  the  Bible  and  superhu- 
man power  connected  with  it. 

The  issues  have  been:  1.  Has  man  receiv- 
ed inspiration  superhuman  power,  and  new- 
revelations  since  the  apostles  of  Christ  com- 
pleted their  work  ?  Or  more  particularly, 
did  he  need  inspiration,  superhuman  pow- 
er, new  revelations,  when  Joseph  Smith 
pretended  to  be  inspired,  possessed  of  su- 
perhuman power,  and  to  give  new  revela- 
tions in  addition  to  those  in  the  Bible?  3. 
Does  the  Bible  teach  that  inspiration,  su- 
perhuman power  and  new  revelations  are 
possible?  That  they  were  and  are  to  con- 
tinue, as  an  essential  constituent  element  in 
the  church?  4.  Or  does  it  teach  that  they 
are  to  cease?  That  they  perfected  their 
work  when  the  New  Testament  was  perfec- 
ted? That  the  law  of  God  was  and  is,  that 
they  should  cease,  when  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  completed,  having  accomplished 
their  work?  Our  position  has  been  that, 
just  as*,  in  the  analogous  cases,  of  e:;ercise 
of  miraculous  power  in  creation,  r-s  in  the 
growth  of  each  individual  existen  -e  in  the 
animal  and  vegetable  world,  or  in  the  work 
of  framing  a  constitution,  and  organizing  a 
government  under  it,  so  in  the  exercise  of 
miraculous  power,  and  the  influence  of  in- 
spiration, in  the  giving  of  revelation  there 
was  an  end,  a  purpose  to  be  accomplished, 
and  that  that  purpose  determined  the 
time  of  its  continuance,  and  that  it  ceased, 
when  it  had  accomplished  its  puYpose,  and 
was  succeeded  by  a  higher  and  more  per- 
fect condition,  for  which  it  had  prepared 
the  way. 

We  explained  that  there  have  been  two 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  1.  The  direct 
and  miraculous,  seen  in  inspiration,  revela- 
tion, and  miracle.  2.  The  ordinary  through 
the  truth.  The  first  is  not  a  moral  influ- 
ence, produces  no  moral  change.  Left  the 
person  influenced  just  as  it  found  him. 
That  the  only  moral  influence  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  exerted  on  men  has  been  through 
truth.  Conversion  and  sanctiflcation  can 
.  be  accomplished  only  through  the  truth 
The  Bible  speaks  of  these  manifestations  of 
the  Holy  Spirit:  1.  The  inspiration  enjoyed 
by  the  inspired  men  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  until  the  ascension  of  Christ.  2.  Bap- 
tism in  the  Holy  Spirit.  3.  Spiritual  gifts 


216 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Imparted  by  the  hands  of  an  apostle.  We 
proved  that  promises  of  Joel,  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  Jesus,  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, all  had  reference  to  the  miraculous  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That  the  promise 
of  the  Comforter  was  to  the  apostles  alone, 
and  was  miraculous.  That  Jesus  limited 
the  promise  of  Joel  "to  all  flesh,"  to  believ- 
ers ;  and  that  his  language  in  Mark  16,  logi- 
vially  does  not  extend  beyond  the  apostles  ; 
each  apostles  as  would  preach,  believing  his 
promise  to  be  with  them ;  for  it  concludes 
"they"  the  apostles  "went"  everywhere 
preaching,  and  the  Lord  was  with  them" 
the  apostles  "attesting  their  work,"  the 
work  of  the  apostles,  with  the  signs  he  had 
promised  to  the  apostles. 

We  proved  that  Peter  limited  the  promise 
of  Joel  to  such  believers  as  "the  Lord  should 
call,"  to  the  exercise  of  the  spiritual  powers, 
that  Joel  promised.  We  proved  that  the 
Lord  called  by  the  imposition  of  an  apostle's 
hands,  that  none  but  an  apostle  could  im- 
part these  gifts.  That  they  never  descended 
to  a  third  person.  We  proved  that  there 
never  were  out  two  instances  of  baptism  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that,  as  there  is  one 
baptism,  only  water  baptism  is  in  the 
church.  Baptism  in  the  Spirit  has  ceased. 
We  proved  by  an  appeal  to  Eph.  4,  that 
spiritual  gifts  were  to  remain  until  the 
church  was  completed,  or  became  a  perfect 
man,  and  the  faith  was  completed  in  the 
New  Testament.  By  an  appeal  to  1.  Cor. 
12-13,  that  there  is  a  more  excellent  way 
than  the  exercise  of  the  best  spiritual  gifts. 
That  prophecy,  all  speaking  by  inspiration, 
knowledge,  all  revelations,  tongues,  all 
mere  signs,  were  to  cease;  when  the  church 
was  completed  in  organization,  and  theNew 
Testament,  the  perfect  law  of  liberty,  that 
which  makes  perfect,  was  completed.  We 
proved  by  our  appeal  to  Daniel's  prophecy 
that  all  vision  and  prophecy  were  to  cease 
about  105 years  after  Christ.  That  as  mirac- 
ulous work  in  creation  ceased,  and  gave 
way  to  the  higher,  the  operation  of  natural 
law,  so  miraculous  work  in  revelation  ceased, 
and  gave  way  to  the  higher,  the  moral 
power  of  truth.  We  next  stated  the  forty 
cardinal  ideas  of  religion  and  showed  that 
Christianity  contains  all  of  them,  expresses 
each  perfectly  as  a  universally  applicable 
truth,  and  that  it  is  an  absolute  religion  of 
universal  and  eternal  truths,  perfectly  ex- 
pressed, and  can  not  be  outgrown. 

We  demanded  of  our  opponent,  what 
single  truth  had  been  given  to  the  world  by 
Mormon  pretended  revelations,  not  in 
Christianity.  What  idea  that  was  not 
better  expressed  in  Christianity,  than  in 
Mormouism?  He  has  utterly  failed  to  meet 
this  question.  We  proved  that  all  Bibie 
writers  and  speakers  speak  of  the  work  of 
Jesus  and  the  apostles,  as  perfect,  the  last, 
the  final.  They  never  speak  of  any  thing 
that  is  to  succeed  it.  They  declare  that 
Christ  came  in  the  fullness  of  the  times. 
That  In  Christ  dwells  the  fullness  of  the 
Godhead,  in  him  was  all  fullness.  They  say 
that  all  fullness  is  in  his  church.  That 
the  Gospel  is  the  fullness,  the  completeness 


of  God's  word.  That  the  church  is  perfect 
in  organization  and  faith  or  doctrine.  That 
God  gave  to  the  apostles  all  things  pertain- 
ing to  life  and  godliness.  This  utterly 
forbids  all  ideaof  Mormon  revelation.  They 
are  needless,  for  the  perfect,  that  which  is 
complete,  the  fullness,  all  things  have  been 
given  in  Christianity. 

We  then  presented  the  history  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon  and  proved  that  it  had  a  base 
human  origin,  and  was  fabricated  as  a 
fraud  to  deceive.  We  proved  by  the  con- 
current testimony  of  seventeen  witnesses, 
one  of  them  Rigdon  himself,  that  Solomon 
Spaulding  wrote  a  romance  called  the 
"  Manuscript  Found  ;"  that  he  wrote  three 
drafts,  or  manuscripts,  of  this  romance  and 
part  of  another  before  his  death.  We  have 
proved  that  the  "Manuscript  Found"  had 
in  it  these  features  found  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  and  found  in  no  other  books  but 
the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Manuscript 
Found.  1.  The  plot  of  the  Manuscript 
Found,  as  witnesses  describe  it,  was  just 
what  Mormons  give  when  describing  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  2.  It  purported  to  be  a 
veritable  history  of  the  aborigines  of  Amer- 
ica. So  does  the  Book  of  Mormon.  3.  It 
attempted  to  account  for  the  antiquities  of 
America  by  giving  an  account  of  their  con- 
struction. So  does  the  Book  of  Mormon,, 
4.  It  assumed  that  Israelites  were  the  abo- 
rigines of  America  and  ancestor  s  of  the  In- 
dians. So  does  the  Book  of  Mormon.  5. 
It  said  the  Israelites  left  Jerusalem.  So 
does  the  Book  of  Mormon.  6.  They  left  to 
escape  divine  judgments  about  to  fall  on 
these  people.  So  does  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
7.  That  they  journeyed  through  and  from 
Southern  Asia,  by  land  and  sea.  So  does  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  8.  Their  leaders  were 
Nephi  and  Lehi.  So  does  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. 9.  One  Laban  was  murdered  to  ob- 
tain records.  So  declares  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. 10.  They  quarreled  and  divided  into 
two  nations,  called  Nephites  and  Lamanites. 
So  says  the  Book  of  Mormon.  11.  There 
were  terrible  wars  between  the  two  nations, 
and  the  parties  into  which  they  divided, 
with  awful  slaughter.  So  declares  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  12.  They  buried  their  dead 
after  these  slaughters  in  great  heaps,  that 
caused  the  mounds.  So  declares  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  13.  In  two  instances  the  end 
of  these  wars  was  the  total  annihilation  of 
all  but  one,  who  escaped  to  make  a  record 
of  the  final  catastrophe.  So  declares  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  14.  These  sole  survivors 
finished  the  record  of  the  people  and  buried 
it.  So  declares  the  Book  of  Mormon.  15. 
The  Manuscript  Found  gave  an  historical  ac- 
count of  the  civilization,  laws,  customs,  arts 
and  sciences  of  those  peoples.  So  does 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  16.  One  party  of 
these  people  were  the  ancestors  of  our 
American  Indians.  So  declares  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  17.  The  names  Nephi,  Lehi, 
Laban,  Laman,  Nephite,  Lamanite,  Mor- 
mon, Moroni,  Amlicite,  Zarahemla,  etc., 
were  in  the  Manuscript  Found.  So  they  are 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  18.  The  use  and 
characteristics  of  these  names  in  the  Manu- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


217 


script  Found  were  precisely  the  same  as  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  19.  The  Manuscript 
Found  was  written  in  scriptural  style — that 
is,  the  style  of  King  James'  version.  So  is 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  20.  "  Now  it  came  to 
pass  "  occurred  so  frequently  as  to  render 
the  language  ridiculous.  Such  is  true  of 
the  Book  of  Mormon.  21.  This  ridiculous 
peculiarity  got  for  the  author  of  the  Manu- 
script Found  the  nickname  of  "Old  Came 
to  Pass."  The  Book  of  Mormon  is  just  *uch 
a  book.  22.  The  original  from  which  the 
story  was  translated^  was  taken  from  the 
earth.  The  same  is  claimed  by  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  23.  One  party  of  emigrants 
landed  near  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and 
migrated  across  the  continent  in  a  north- 
eastern direction.  So  declares  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  24.  The  land  near  the  Isthmus 
was  called  the  land  of  Zarahemla.  So  de- 
clares the  Book  of  Mormon.  25.  In  a  battle 
between  Amlicites  and  Lamanites,  one 
party  marked  their  foreheads  with  a  red 
cross  to  distinguish  them  from  their  ene- 
mies. So  declares  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
26.  The  destruction  of  the  nations  extermi- 
nated took  place  near  a  hill  called  Cumorah. 
So  declares  the  Book  of  Mormon.  27.  The 
Manuscript  Found  could  have  been  used  as 
a  fraud,  an  imitation  of  the  Bible,  a  pre- 
tended revelation.  The  Buok  of  Mormon  is 
just  such  a  fraud.  Now,  then,  the  reader 
must  do  one  of  the  two  things,  believe  that 
Solomon  Spaulding,  during  a  period  of 
from  twenty-two  to  fourteen  years  before 
the  Book  of  Mormon  appeared,  by  a  miracle 
wrote  a  romance  that  contained  these 
twenty-seven  great  features  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon — features  that  no  oth.er  book  except 
the  Manuscript  Found  and  Book  of  Mormon 
ever  contained  in  common — or  that  Rigdon 
stole  the  manuscript  of  the  Manuscript 
Found  and  remodeled  it  into  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 

We  proved  that  the  third  manuscript  of 
Manuscript  Found  was  taken  to  Patterson's 
printing  office.  That  Rigdon  was  learning 
the  tanner's  trade  in  Pittsburg  at  that  time. 
That  he  was  very  intimate  with  Lambdin, 
one  of  Patterson's  printers.  That  the 
Spaulding  Manuscript  Found  attracted 
much  curiosity  in  the  printing  office.  That 
Rigdon  as 'i. uch  interested  in  it.  That  he 
hung  around  the  office,  till  Engles,  the  fore- 
man complained  of  it.  That  the  manuscript 
was  stolen.  That  Rigdon  was  charged  with 
stealing  it.  That  He  afterwards  showed  it 
to  Dr.  Winters,  saying  that  it  was  a  Bible 
romance,  written  by  a  Presbyterian  preacher 
named  Spaulding,  giving  a  history  of  the 
Indians,  and  that  it  had  been  taken  to  a 
printing  office  for  publication,  and  that  he 
borrowed  it  as  a  curiosity.  We  proved  that 
he  spent  so  much  time  over  it  that  his  wife 
threatened  to  burn  it.  That  he  retorted: 
"Indeed  you  will  not ;  this  will  be  a  great 
thing  some  day."  We  proved  by  Jeffries 
that  Rigdon  told  him  that  he  took  the 
manuscript  from  the  printing  office  and 
gave  it  to  Smith  to  publish.  We  proved  by 
Tucker,  Mrs.  Eaton,  McAuly,  Chase  and 
Saunders  that  Rigdon  was  seen  at  Smith's 


in  New  York,  from  the  spring  of  1827  to  the 
fall  of  1830.  We  proved  that  he  was  absent 
from  Mentor  for  weeks  at  a  time,  during 
these  years,  and  no  one  knew  where.  We 
proved  by  Bentley,  Campbell  and  Atwater, 
that  he  announced  years  before  it  appeared 
fuch  a  book  as  the  Book  of  Mormon,  trans- 
lated from  Gold  plates,  dug  up  in  New 
York,  giving  the  origin  of  American  Anti- 
quities, a  history  of  the  aborigines  of  Amer- 
ica, and  telling  that  the  gospel  had  been 
preached  in  America  just  as  the  Disciples 
were  then  preaching  it  on  the  Reserve.  We 
proved  by  Atwater,  Dille,  Z.  Rudolph,  John 
Rudolph,  Green,  and  by  Kelley  himself, 
that  Rigdon  preached  and  advocated  the 
doctrines  in  which  the  Book  of  Mormon  dif- 
fers from  the  Disciples,  the  peculiar  ideas  of 
the  Book.  That  he  so  indoctrinated  all  his 
hearers,  where  he  could,  that  every  Rigdon- 
ite  became  a  Mormon,  when  he  became  one. 
He  had  prepared  then  for  theslightchange. 
chiefly  a  change  of  name.  We  showed  that 
when  a  Mormon  preacher  read  to  a  Conne- 
aut  audience,  for  the  first  time  they  had 
ever  heard  it,  the  Book  of  Mormon,  Spaulct- 
ing's  old  acquaintances,  who  had  heard 
him  read  his  Manuscript  Found,  denounced 
the  fraud,  Squire  Wright  shouting :  "Old- 
come-to-pass  has  come  to  life."  His  broth- 
er, John  Spaulding,  denounced  it  on  the 
spot. 

We  have  shown  that  the  witness  after 
reading  the  Book  of  Mormon,  declare  that 
the  historic  portions,  in  all  of  the  twenty- 
seven  great  features  we  have  enumerated, 
is  identical  with  the  Manuscript  Found 
of  Solomon  Spaulding.  They  reject  the  re- 
ligious portion.  That  accords  with  the  idea 
that  Rigdon  stole  the  Manuscript  Found, 
and  remodeled  it  to  the  use  of  a  pretended 
revelation,  interpolating  the  religious  por- 
tion. The  testimony  showing  that  Spauld- 
ing wrote  several  Manuscripts  explains 
away  the  trouble  over  Rigdon's  copying  it. 

He  stole  it.  It  explains  the  size  of  the 
Manuscript  Martha  Spaulding  read.  She 
read  her  father's  first  brief  draft,  or  the 
portion  he  wrote  in  Amity  after  Rigdon 
stole  what  he  had  sent  to  Patterson's  office 
to  be  published.  It  explains  away  all 
trouble  over  the  discrepancy,  the  difference 
between  Spaulding's  sentiments  and  the 
teaching  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

We  then  gave  a  chronology  of  Mormon- 
ism  showing  that  our  history  of  the  book 
accorded  exactly  with  every  demand  of  his- 
tory. We  then  proved  by  the  Rigdonisms 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  that  Rigdon  is  its 
author.  We  found  that  no  one  but  a  Dis- 
ciple preacher  of  the  time  when  it  appeared, 
could  have  been  its  author,  used  its  lan- 
guage, and  uttered  its  teachings.  We 
showed  that  where  Rigdon  agreed  with 
the  Disciples,  the  Book  agreed  with  them 
Where  he  disagreed  it  disagreed  and  very 
bitterly  too.  That  it  advocates  Rigdon'a 
ideas  on  community  of  goods,  restoration  of 
spiritual  gifts,  new  revelations,  his  fall- 
down  power  to  which  he  was  subject.  His 
anti-Masonry.  His  name  for  believers  and 
for  the  church.  His  sermon  against  infant 


218 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


baptism.  That  it  contains  his  baptismal 
formula,  his  revival  expressions,  his  rant 
bombast,  fustian,  and  spread-eagle.  That 
it  has  every  mark  of  being  arranged  by  one 
mind,  not  many,  as  Mormons  claim.  The 
style  is  a  unit  not  diverse  as  is  the  case  in 
the  Bible.  That  one  mind  is  Rigdon. 

We  took  up  the  testimony  of  Smith,  the 
three  witnesses,  the  eight.  We  proved  that 
Smith  was  notorious  for  his  frauds  and  lies. 
We  exposed  his  almost  countless  lies  and 
contradictor}'  stories  about  the  matter.  We 
proved  that  he  never  made  a  statement 
that  he  did  not,  at  some  time,  contradict. 
We  proved  by  the  declarations  of  those  who 
had  been  his  neighbors,  associates,  and  by 
Mormons  themselves  that  he  was  notorious 
for  his  falsehoods  and  frauds.  We  took  up 
the  three  witnesses.  We  proved  Martin 
Harris  to  have  been  utterly  unreliable 
in  his  stories  about  Mormonism.  He  lied 
about  his  interview  with  Anthon.  He  told 
most  idiotic  lies.  He  said  he  never  saw  the 
plates  with  his  natural  sight.  He  saw  them 
by  faith.  We  read  Joe's  warning  against 
adultery  and  murder,  in  a  revelation  ad- 
dressed to  Harris.  Joe's  denunciation-  of 
of  him  as  being  beneath  the  notice  of  a  gen- 
tleman. That  he  had  been  a  vile  character 
before  hejoined  the  Mormon  Church,  and 
he  gave  his  testimony  one  year  before  he 
joined  the  church.  We  showed  by  his  ri- 
diculous, idiotic  tales,  that  he  was  utterly 
unworthy  of  belief.  We  proved  by  Cow- 
dery's  old  neighbors  that  he  was  worthless 
and  unworthy  of  belief.  By  a  revelation 
uttered  by  Smith  that  he  was  not  to  be  trus- 
ted. By  Hiram  Smith  that  he  was  a  thief 
.and  a  robber  and  forger.  By  Joe  that  he 
had  been  cut  off  from  the  church  for  crime, 
and  was  engaged  in  lying  against  the  Saints, 
and  plotting  their  murder  and  robbery. 
That  he  died  a  drunken  sot  with  delirum 
tremens. 

We  proved  by  David  Whitmer's  yarns 
that  his  testimony  was  worthless.  Angels 
sowing  plaster,  plowing  land,  and  all  such 
tomfoolery.  We  proved  that  Joe  said  he 
was  cut  off  with  Cowdery  from  crime,  and 
was  engaged  with  him  in  circulating  lies 
and  plotting  the  murder  and  robbery  of  the 
Saints.  We  showed  that  Rigdon  and  83 
other  Mormons,  their  leaders,  denounced 
Cowdery  and  Whitmer  as  slanderers,  liars, 
thieves,  counterfeiters,  connected  with  a 
gang  of  blacklegs  of  the  blackest  dye.  Such 
are  the  three  witnesses  according  to  Mor- 
mons themselves — Joe  Smith,  Hyram  Smith. 
Rigdon,  and  leading  Mormons.  We  showed 
that  the  testimony  of  the  eight  witnesses 
was  a  lie,  for  they  testify  to  what  they 
could  not  know.  We  showed  by  compar- 
ing the  revelation  announcing  to  the  wit- 
nesses that  they  should  see  the  plates,  with 
the  two  testimonials,  that  Joe  wrote  all 
three.  He  wrote  the  lie  and  the  confeder- 
ates in  the  fraud  swore  to  it.  We  proved 
by  appeals  to  their  stories  in  Mormon  books 
that  the  persons  who  claim  to  have  seen  the 
plates  and  their  associates  in  the  fraud,  tell 
contradictory  stories  on  every  point  con- 
nected with  it.  That  there  is  not  a  state- 


ment of  one  that  is  not  contradicted  bjr 
others,  and  that  the  witnesses  contradict 
themselves,  every  statement  they  make. 
On  such  testimony  as  this  is  the'Book  of 
Mormon  based. 

We  proved  that  Joe  had  for  years,  before 
going  into  Rigdon's  book  fraud,  been  en- 
gaged in  lying  frauds,  witching  for  water, 
peeping  for  money  with  the  peep  stone  he 
stole  from  Chase's  children,  digging  for 
money,  lying  about  it,  swindling  every 
dupe  he  could  find,  and  stealing  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  and  that  all  the  witnesses  were 
connected  with  this  money  digging,  thiev- 
ing, lying  gang,  who  had  been  lying  to  get 
money  by  fraud,  and  a  living  without 
work.  If  Joe's  peep-stone,  stolen  from 
Chase's  children,  his  witching  for  water, 
his  digging  for  money,  his  seeing  buried 
money  with  his  stolen  peep-stone  were 
frauds,  so  was  his  tale  about  finding  plates, 
and  his  tale  about  translating  them.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  is  as  much  a  fraud  as  his 
digging  tor  pots  of  money.  We  showed 
that  his  translation  of  the  papyrus  was  a 
transparent  fraud.  So  was  his  Book  of 
Mormon.  It  was  as  great  a  fraud  as  his 
Book  of  Abraham.  We  showed  that  the 
pretended  fac  simile  sent  to  Anthon  and 
the  one  in  Utah  were  lying  frauds.  So  was 
the  lie  he  told  about  having  plates,  from 
which  he  copied  these  frauds.  All  these 
are  frauds,  one  as  transparent  as  the  other, 
and  as  palpable  as  the  noonday  sun  to  all, 
except  fanatics  or  dupes. 

We  proved  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is 
based  on  two  assumptions:  1.  An  angel 
gave  a  pile  of  plates  to  Joe  Smith.  2.  The 
Lord  gave  the  translation  of  the  plates  to 
Joe,  word  by  word,  by  miracle.  Of  this  we 
have  not  one  iota  of  proof,  except  the  naked 
assertions  of  Joe  Smith.  We  have  already 
exposed  his  character  and  frauds.  His  as- 
sertions are  no  better  in  regard  to  this  than 
in  regard  to  witching  for  water,  peeping 
for  money,  or  his  translation  of  papyrus 
rolls,  or  his  lying  fac  simile.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  has  not  one  particle  of  proof  that 
an  uninspired  book  should  have.  No  inter- 
locking with  history,  geography,  literature 
and  customs.  No  more  than  Vernet's  "Trip 
to  the  moon."  It  has  every  feature  of  a 
fraud.  It  avoids  all  tests  like  all  frauds. 
It  lacks  every  feature  that  sustains  the 
Bible.  It  does  does  not  interlock  with  other 
history,  geography,  literature  and  customs. 
It  is  not  attested  by  national  customs,  his- 
tory; by  monumental  institutions;  by 
prophecies;  by  a  vast  literature  based  on 
it;  by  growing  up  in  the  midst  of  hostile 
criticism  and  attacks.  It  does  not  form  the 
most  wonderful  part  of  the  world's  history, 
as  does  the  Bible.  It  is  as  isolated  from  all 
these  tests  as  Gulliver's  Travels.  It  is  as 
monstrous  a  fabrication  and  in  finitely  more 
improbable. 

We  examined  the  book  itself.  We  ex- 
posed its  contradictions  of  common  sense, 
its  monstrous  fabrications,  its  hundreds  of 
contradictions  of  itself,  its  contradictions  of 
the  Bible,  in  history,  in  doctrine;  its  con- 
tradictions of  the  inspired  translation  of  Joe 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


219 


Smith,  its  contradictions  of  science,  of 
history.  We  exposed  its  literary  character, 
its  grammatical  blunders,  its  atrocious  style, 
its  silly  expressions.  We  show  that  Mor- 
mons admit  its  ridiculous  inaccuracies  and 
atrocities  by  revising  out  of  it  over  5,000 
blunders,  many  of  which  are  perfect  mon- 
strosities. Yet  it  was  written  by  inspira- 
tion by  the  Almighty.  The  Almighty 
revising  himself !  The  Almighty  learning 
grammar  and  composition!!  We  exposed 
its  quotations  from  King  James'  translation, 
quoting  its  blunders  in  text,  in  translation, 
in  grammar,  its  obsolete  words,  its  ridicul- 
ous copying  of  the  brogue  of  that  transla- 
tion ;  showing  that  it  was  written  by  a 
person  who  used  that  translation  alone. 
We  exposed  its  adaptations  from  modern 
history  and  the  Bible,  its  anachronisms,  its 
speaking  of  things  hundreds  of  years  before 
they  existed,  its  quotations  from  the  New 
Testament  hundreds  of  years  before  it  ex- 
isted, its  ridiculous  quotations  from  modern 
authors,  proving  that  it  was  written  after 
their  day. 

Finally  we  proved  that  Joe  Smith  was 
the  author  of  Mormon  polygamy  and  the 
infamy  blasphemously  called  ''The  Reve- 
lation on  Celestial  Marriage."  This  alone 
damns  with  infamy  all  claim  that  he  was 
a  prophet,  or  that  a  book  that  emanated 
from  him  is  of  divine  origin.  In  conclusion, 
ladies  and  gentlemen,  will  you  believe  that 
Spaulding  by  miracle  in  writing  a  fictitious 
history.of  the  aborigines  of  America  wrote 
a  book  that  agreed  with  a  revelation  of  the 
history  of  the  aborigines  of  America  in  all 
important  features  and  names,  events,  and 
even  of  persons  and  nations,  twenty  years 
before  such  pretended  revelation  appeared? 
Or  will  you  believe  that  the  pretended 
revelation  is  a  plagiarism  from  Spaulding's 


manuscript  written  twenty  years  before  it 
appeared?  There  are  twenty-seven  great 
features  of  the  Manuscript  Found  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  The  Manuscript  Found 
is  twenty  years  the  oldest.  They  were 
stolen  from  the  Manuscript  Found  by  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  Will  you  believe  that 
Nephites,  in  America,  quoted  whole  chap- 
ters of  the  Bible  written  after  they  left 
Asia,  quoted  chapters  and  hundreds  of 
.  verses  before  they  were  uttered,  that  they 
quoted  modern  authors,  quoted  the  brogue 
of  King  James'  translators,  its  grammatical 
blunders,  its  obsolete  words,  quoted  Rig- 
don's  baptismal  formula,  his  rant  on  infant 
baptism,  his  revivalisms,  his  peculiar  ideas 
in  every  particular,  all  of  which  existed 
before  it  appeared?  Or  will  you  believe, 
as  we  have  proved,  that  Rigdon  stole 
Spaulding's  manuscript  and  remodeled  it 
into  a  pretended  revelation,  "to  make  a  big 
thing  out  of  it,"  as  he  declared  he  would? 
You  can  act  for  yourselves,  but  common 
sense  says  this  fraud  was  started  by  a  back- 
slidden, sceptical  man,  once  a  preacher. 
Another  sceptical  preacher  stole  and  re- 
modeled it.  A  third  infidel  gave  it  to  the 
world  with  his  stolen  peep-stone.  As  it 
was  the  work  of  infidelity,  there  is  a  fitness 
of  things  in  its  being  defended  here  by  in- 
fidel attacks  on  the  Bible.  As  infidels  got 
it  up,  an  infidel  should  defend  it  with  in- 
fidel sophistries.  It  was  begotten  by  Spauld- 
ing, a  sceptical  back-slider,  in  sin;  con- 
ceived by  Rigdon,  another  sceptical 
back-slider  in  iniquity;  and  brought  forth 
by  Joe  Smith,  a  sceptical  admirer  of  Paine, 
and  an  advocate  of  his  sentiments,  in  de- 
pravity and  pollution ;  and  has  flourished 
in  fraud  and  fanaticism  until  it  has  culmi- 
nated in  Utah  in  what  would  make  devils 
blush. 


220 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


SECOND    PROPOSITION. 


Proposition :  I*  the  Church  of  which  I, 
dark  Braden,  am  a  member,  identical 
in  faith,  organization,  ordinances,  teach- 
ing, worship  and  practice,  with  the  Church 
of  Christ,  as  it  was  left  completed  and  per- 
fected, by  the  apostles  of  Christ. 

CLARK  BRADEN  AFFIRMS: 

GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — To  avoid  all  wrangling  be- 
tween the  disputants,  and  to  enable  the 
hearer  to  understand,  fully  the  issue,  the 
proposition  and  its  terms  need  careful  ex- 
planation. 

The  word  church  has  a  variety  of  meanings, 
arising  from  the  various  ways  in  which  it  is 
used.  1.  It  includes  all  the  children  of 
God  in  heaven  and  on  earth ;  as  when 
it  is  declared  that  the  whole  family  on  earth 
and  in  heaven  are  named  after  Christ. 
Eph.  2.  Also  in  the  expression  "the  Church 
of  the  First  Born."  2.  It  includes  all  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  on  earth  when  it  is  declared 
that  the  Church  is  the  pillar  and  support 
of  the  truth.  Christ  loved  the  Church  and 
gave  himself  for  it,  etc.  3.  It  includes  all  the 
followers  of  Christ  in  a  certain  country, 
region  or  district,  as  the  Church  in  Galatia, 
Rome,  United  States,  Ohio,  Saline  County, 
or  Cincinnati.  4.  It  means  a  body  of 
Christians  organized  according  to  the  New 
Testament  model.  5.  It  means  a  number 
of  Christians  who  meet  to  worship  God, 
whether  organized  or  not,  as  the  church  in 
the  house  of  Anuila.  Such  church  may  be 
an  organized  church  or  an  elemental  church. 
These  are  all  the  uses  of  the  word  that  are 
recognised  in  the  New  Testament,  when  the 
word  is  applied  to  the  followers  of  Christ,  for 
there  were  no  denominations  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles.  Since  the  division  of  Christians 
into  denominations,  it  means :  5.  A  body 
of  Christians  that  are  separated  from  all 
others  into  an  organization  characterized 
by  certain  features  peculiar  to  themselves, 
such  as  the  Methodist  Church,  Baptist 
Church,  etc. 

It  is  in  this  sense  that  I  use  the  word  in 
the  expression,  "  the  church  of  which  I, 
Clark  Braden,  am  a  member."  Thomas 
and  Alexander  Campbell,  believing  that 
the  division  of  Christians  into  denomina- 
tions is  unscriptural  and  wrong,  tried  to 
remedy  it  by  securing  a  union  of  all  follow- 
ers of  Christ.  They  undertook  to  accomplish 
this,  by  trying  to  get  all  Christians  to  take 
the  Bible  as  their  creed  ;  to  return  to  exact 
conformity  to  the  apostolic  precedent.  They 
urged  that  all  should  abandon  everything 
that  had  not  a  clear  apostolic  precedent, 
and  accept  all  that  had  such  precedent. 
They  undertook  a  restoration  of  Apostolic 
Christianity,  and  not  a  reformation  of  any 
or  all  existing  denominations,  which  was 


all  that  Savonarola,  Wickliffe,  Huss, 
Luther,  Calvin,  Wesley  and  other  reformers 
attempted. 

The  result  of  the  efforts  of  the  Campbells 
and  their  coadjutors,  has  been  a  body  of 
people  known  as  the  "Disciples  of  Christ," 
"The  Christian  Church,"  or  "The  Church 
of  Christ."  It  is  this  body  of  people  that  I 
mean,  when  I  speak  of  the  church  of  which 
I,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member. 

There  is  one  more  phrase  that  needs 
explanation,  it  is  "The  Church  of  Christ," 
as  it  was  left  perfected  and  completed  by 
the  apostles  of  Christ."  The  revelation 
contained  in  the  Scriptures,  was  gradually 
revealed  and  developed,  during  a  period  of 
several  thousand  years.  God's  deaHngs 
with  men,  in  making  this  revelation  can  be 
divided  into  four  dispensations.  1.  The 
Antediluvian  Dispensation,  that  we  might 
call  the  Infancy  of  our  race,  extending  from 
Adam's  first  transgression,  to  the  Flood. 
During  this  period  there  was  no  organiza- 
tion of  the  children  of  God.  God  had 
individual  followers,  like  Abel,  Seth, 
Enoch.  To  these  individual  followers  he 
gave  rudimental  revelations,  the  alphabet 
of  revelation,  through  angelic  messengers 
and  inspired  men.  2.  The  Patriarchal  Dis- 
pensation, the  childhood  of  our  race,  extend- 
ing from  the  Flood  to  the  calling  of  Moses. 
During  this  period,  the  family  was  the 
organization,  and  the  father  was  the  priest 
of  the  family.  To  these  families  God  gave 
higher  teaching  and  simple  commands,  but 
it  was  still  elementary.  3.  The  Mosaic 
Dispensation,  extending  from  the  calling  of 
Moses  to  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  that  we 
might  call  the  Youth  of  our  race. 

During  this  period  God  had  a  chosen 
nation  "  The  Commonwealth  of  Israel." 
To  this  nation  he  gave,  in  the  Mosaic  Code. 
a  disciplinary  law  of  positive  commands, 
and  a  system  of  types,  symbols,  object 
lessons,  prophetical  of  a  better  dispensa- 
tion, and  symbolizing  great  truths.  4.  The 
Christian  Dispensation,  extending  from  the 
Day  of  Pentecost  until  the  end  of  the  human 
epoch  of  the  world's  career,  that  we  may 
designate  the  "Manhood"  of  our  race. 
During  this  period  God  has  a  church,  an 
organization  based  entirely  on  faith  and 
piety.  To  this  he  has  given  a  law  of  uni- 
versally applicable  truths,  and  principles, 
in  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

The  Israelites  were  God's  normal  school 
in  religion.  It  was  his  purpose  to  develop 
among  them  a  religion  for  the  salvation  of 
men,  and  by  such  development  to  train 
them  to  be  its  missionaries,  the  teachers  of 
this  religion  to  the  world.  In  this  normal 
school  there  were  different  periods  or  grades 
of  teaching.  From  the  calling  of  Abraham 
to  Moses  was  the  primary  grade,  with  sim- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


221 


pie  teaching  and  discipline.  From  the  call- 
Ing  of  Moses  to  the  Prophets,  beginning 
with  Samuel,  was  the  intermediate  grade, 
with  much  teaching  and  discipline.  From 
Samuel  to  Malachi  was  the  grammar  grade, 
with  still  closer  drill,  discipline  and  teach- 
ing. From  Malachi  till  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, during  which  time  there  was  no  reve- 
lation, was  the  high  school  grade. 

In  this  period  John  the  Baptist  called  the 
Israelites  back  to  a  faithful,  pious  obedience 
to  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  teachings  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Our  Savior  educated 
his  apostles  and  prepared  the  way  for  the 
establishment  of  the  church  by  them.  But 
neither  John  nor  Jesus  established  a  church. 
They  were  loyal  Israelites,  obeying  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  never  worshipped  apart  from 
the  Israelites'  worship.  During  this  devel- 
opment of  revelation  there  were  revelation, 
inspiration,  miraculous  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  inspired  all  men  who  spoke, 
wrote  or  acted  under  inspiration  from  Adam 
to  John  the  Baptist.  He  insp're  I  Zacha- 
riah,  Mary,  Elizabeth,  Anna,  Simon.  Jesus 
and  his  apostles  when  they  acted  under 
inspiration. 

John  and  Jesus  promised  a  more  complete 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Joel  and  the 
prophets  had  prophesied  that,  at  the  close 
of  tiie  Israelite  dispensation  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  dispensation,  there 
should  be  a  wonderful  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  should  not  be  confined  to  Israel 
but  should  extend  to  all  mankind.  John 
and  Jesus  promised  the  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Jesus  promised  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
a  comforter  or  advocate  to  his  apostles. 

Peter  promised  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all  that 
God  should  call.  The  apostles  imparted 
miraculous  gifts  to  Christians,  such  as  our 
Savior  promised  in  the  last  chapter  in  Mark. 
These  gifts  existed  in  the  apostolic  churches. 
They  were  designed  to  supply  inspired 
teaching  to  the  church,  and  attest  it,  until 
the  apostles  had  perfected  the  organization 
of  the  church,  and  had  completed  the  work 
of  revelation  in  giving  to  the  church  the 
New  Testament. 

Then,  as  God  completed  his  work  of  crea- 
tion, when  he  created  man,  and  creation 
ceased,  and  plants  and  animals  came  into 
being  by  natural  laws,  so  when  the  New 
Testament  church  was  perfected  by  the 
apostles,  and  its  perfect  law  of  liberty  was 
completed  and  perfected  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  work  of  revelation  and  inspira- 
tion ceased,  having  been  perfected  in  the 
apostolic  church  and  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  church  is  controlled,  and  will  be 
until  the  end  of  time,  by  the  perfect  Word 
of  God,  the  New  Testament. 

By  the  Church  of  Christ,  as  left  perfected 
and  completed  by  the  apostles  of  Christ,  I 
mean  the  followers  of  Christ,  as  they  were 
left  in  congregations,  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  their  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  by 
the  apostles  and  inspired  men,  when  the 
last  inspired  man  fell  asleep  in  Jesus. 

It  is  my  work  to  prove  that  the  "  Disciples 
of  Christ,"  "The  Christian  Church,"  "  The 
Church  of  Christ," — the  denomination  of 


which  I  am  a  member,  Is  identical  in  faith, 
organization,  teaching,  ordinances,  worship 
and  practice  with,  trie  apostolic  churfh, 
composed  of  the  congregations  that  the 
apostles  left  with  the  New  Testament  as 
their  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

I  believe  as  the  apostle  John  teaches,  that 
all  persons  who  believe  with  the  whole 
heart  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  who  forsake 
and  oppose  all  sin,  and  who  believe  and 
accept  the  Bible  as  God's  word,  and  live 
according  to  the  light  they  have,  in  its 
teachings,  are  "Christians;"  and  that  all 
denominations  composed  of  such  persons 
are  "Churches  of  Christ,"  although  they 
may  be  imperfect  and  in  error  in  certain 
particulars. 

It  is  our  duty,  as  teachers  of  God's  word, 
to  proclaim  its  full  teaching  and  to  enforce 
its  every  law ;  but  we  are  not  judges,  to 
decide  who  shall  be  saved,  or  to  decide  who 
are  Christians,  and  who  are  not.  Preach 
the  whole  truth,  and  leave  judgment  with 
God. 

Tne  "  Church  of  Christ"  is  controlled  by 
certain  great  principles  in  its  use  of  the 
word  of  God.  These  may  be  summarized 
as  follows : 

1.  The  Scriptures,  and  the  Scriptures 
alone,  should  be  the  creed  of  all  Christians. 
The  word  "creed  "  has  three  uses.  A  man 
reads  the  Scriptures  and  he  believes  that 
they  teach  certain  things.  What  he 
believes  the  Scriptures  to  teach,  is  his  creed. 
Men  preach,  write  and  print  what  they 
believe  the  Scriptures  teach.  Such  belief 
is  their  creed  in  the  second  use  of  the  word. 
Men  use  such  understandings  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  a  bond  of  union,  and  unite  on  them 
with  all  who  believe  with  them.  They  use 
them  as  a  test  of  fellowship,  and  will  unite 
with  only  such  as  profess  to  believe  such 
understandings  of  the  Scriptures,  and  will 
fellowship  only  such.  They  use  such  un- 
derstandings of  the  Scriptures  as  guides  in 
worship,  practice  and  discipline. 

This  is  the  third  use  of  the  word  "creed." 
It  is  only  in  this  sense  that  we  object  to 
creeds.  The  difference  between  ourselves 
and  others  can  be  seen  by  a  familiar  illus- 
tration. A  legislature  enacts  a  statute.  A 
case  is  brought  before  a  judge  that  cornea 
under  this  statute.  He  decides  the  case  by 
his  understanding  of  the  statute.  In  like 
manner,  if  a  question  of  faith,  practice, 
worship,  ordinance  or  duty  arises,  we,  ia 
common  with  all  Christians,  decide  it  by 
our  understanding  of  the  Scriptures.  So 
far  we  do  just  as  all  Christians  do. 

Now  comes  the  difference.  We  say  "Go 
to  the  law  each  and  every  time,  and  decide 
each  and  every  question,  by  an  original  in- 
vestigation of  the  law."  The  rest  of  the  re- 
ligious world  reduce  their  first  understand- 
ing to  a  crefed,  written  or  unwritten,  and 
deside  all  subsequent  cases  by  their  first 
understanding,  or  more  properly,  by  an  un- 
derstanding of  their  first  understanding. 
They  practically  lay  the  law  on  the  shelf, 
and  use  original  investigation  only  to  reach 
an  understanding  of  the  first  understand- 
ing of  the  Bible. 


222 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


We  say  use  the  Bible  just  as  you  use 

Sjur  "Confession  of  Faith,"   or   "Book  of 
iscipline."    God's  word  declares  it  should 
be  so  used,  and  it  alone  should  be  so  used. 

2.  Agreement  among  Christians  is  to  be 
required  only  in  such  matters  of  belief,  or- 
ganization, worship,  practice,  and  duty,  as 
are  matters  of  faith.    In  matters  of  opinion 
there    must   be    toleration    and    Christian 
charity.     There  should  be  charity  also  in 
all  questions  covering  expediency  and  in- 
strumentalities, iu  carrying  out  the  faith, 
worship,  practice,  and  duty  embraced  in 
matters  of  faith. 

3.  Nothing  should  be  required  of  anyone 
as  an  item  of  faith  in   belief,  organization, 
worship,  practice,  or  duty,  for  which  there 
is  not  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  expressed, 
or  clearly  implied,  for  which  there  is  not 
an   apostolic    precedent  expressed  in   lan- 

fuage,  or  action,  or  by  clearest,  implication, 
or  all  items  of  faith  in  belief,  worship,  or- 
ganization, ordinances,  worship,  practice 
and  duty,  there  must  be  a  clear  apostolic 
teaching,  by  word,  or  example,  clearly  ex- 
pressed or  implied. 

All  creeds  declare  that  the  Scriptures  are 
a  perfect  and  all-sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  that  what  cannot  be  read 
therein,  nor  proved  thereby,  should  not  be 
required  of  anyone,  as  an  item  of  religious 
faith  or  practice.  We  say  if  they  are  per- 
fect and  all-sufficient,  we  need  no  creed.  If 
we  can  read  an  item  of  faith  or  practice  in 
the  Scriptures,  or  prove  it  by  them,  we  do 
not  need  a  creed  to  do  what  we  can  do  by 
using  God's  perfect  word. 

4.  Where  the   Bible  speaks,    Christians 
can  speak,  and  should  speak,  and  always 
speak  as  the  Bible  speaks. 

5.  Where  the  Bible  is  silent,  concerning 
what  is  claimed  to  be  an  item  of  faith  or 
practice,  Christians  should   be  silent,  and 
never  teach  or  enforce  as  an  item  of  faith  or 
practice.  The  silence  of  the  Bible  is  as  much 
to  be  respected  as  its  speech.    This  does  not 
apply  to  opinions,  or  to  expedients,  means 
and  instrumentalties,  to  be  used  in  carrying 
out  faith  or  practice.    It  forbids  enforcing 
these  as  items  of  faith  and   practice,  and 
divisions  of  Christians  over  such  opinions, 
means  and  expedients. 

6.  We  will  always  call  Bible  things  by 
Bible  names.    We'  will  use  the  speech  of 
Canaan  and  not  of  Ashdod.  We  say  "Lord's 
Day"  not  "Sabbath,"  which  belonged  to 
the  Israelite  seventh  day. 

7.  We  will   apply  Bible  names  only  to 
Bible  things.    We  call  immersion  of  a  be- 
liever baptism.    We  do  not  apply  that  term 
to  sprinkling  or  pouring,  nor  to  immersing, 
sprinkling  or  pouring  an  infant. 

8.  All  followers  of  Christ  should  wear  his 
name,  and  his  name  alone,  and  be  called 
"Christians,"  and  that  alone.    The  Church 
should  wear  his  name,  and  his  name  alone, 
and  be  called  "The  Church  of  Christ,"  or 
"The  Church  of  God." 

We  do  not  say  that  none  but  ourselves 
are  Christiana.  We  merely  say  we  are 
Christians,  ^hat  we  should  wear  that  name 
Alone.  If  others  are  Christians,  they  should 


wear  that  name  alone.  We  do  not  hinder 
them  from  doing  so.  We  only  object  to 
their  nick-naming  us.  If  they  are  willing 
to  wear  a  nick-name  rather  than  the  name 
"Christian,"  they  have  no  right  to  force  us 
to  violate  the  law  or  God,  in  forcing  a  nick- 
name upon  us. 

We  do  not  claim  that  our  church  is  the 
only  church  of  Christ.  We  may  say  we  are 
a  church  of  Christ,  and  will  wear  that  name 
alone.  If  other  denominations  are  "Churches 
of  Christ,"  they  should  wear  that  name 
alone.  They  violate  God's  law  in  using  a 
nick-name.  If  they  prefer  a  nick-name, 
they  have  no  business  to  try  to  force  us  to 
violate  it  by  forcing  on  us  a  nick-name. 

9.  To  apostolic  precedent,  in  all  items  of 
faith,  in  regard  to  belief,  organization,  or- 
dinances, teaching,  worship,  and  practice, 
for  which  there  is  an  apostolic  precedent, 
there  should  be  strict  conformity. 

10.  All  followers  of  Christ  should  be  one, 
as  he  prayed,  when  he  said  : 

"  Father  keep  them  through  thine  own  name,  the 
disciples  that  thou  hast  given  me.  That  they  maybe 
one,  as  we  are  ene.  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone,"  but 
also  for  those  who  shall  believe  on  me  through  thy 
word,  that  they  also  may  all  be  sue,  as  thou,  Father, 
art  in  me,  «nd  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  all  be  one 
in  us,  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  has  sent 
me." 

And  that  they  should  be  one  by  standing 
on  the  platform  laid  down  in  Eph.  4;  and 
that  they  all  could,  and  would  be  one,  if 
they  would  do  so.  Paul  says  : 

"I  beseech  you  therefore,  brethren,  to  talk  worthy 
of  the  name  by  which  you  are  called,  with  all  lowliness 
and  meekness,  with  long  suffering,  forbearing  one 
another  in  love,  giving  diligence  to  keep  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  There  is  OIIH  body  and 
one  Spirit,  even  as  you  were  named  in  ot>e  hope  of your 
naming,  (one  hope  through  the  name  by  which  you  are 
called),  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  Ood  and 
Father  of  all.  who  ia  over  all  and  through  all  and 
in  all." 

Paul  lays  down  eight  items,  eight  planks 
in  the  platform  forChristian  union.  1.  One 
God,  the  Father.  2.  One  Lord  Jesus,  the 
Christ.  3.  One  Holy  Spirit.  4.  One  faith, 
the  faith,  one  system  of  belief  and  teaching, 
the  Scriptures.  5.  One  baptism.  6.  One 
hope.  7.  One  body,  the  Church.  8.  One 
name  for  believers,  "Christian."  One  name 
for  the  Church,  "The  Church  of  God,"  "The 
Church  of  Christ." 

We  will  now  analyze  these  eight  items, 
specifying  wherein  we  agree  with  the 
religious  world,  and  wherein  we  disagree, 
and  our  reasons  for  such  disagreement.  My 
opponent  will  criticise  our  position  in  two 
ways.  He  will  object  to  some  thing  we 
teach.  He  will  object  that  we  do  not  teach 
certain  things,  that  he  regards  as  essential 
to  the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  first  criticism  we  will  notice.  The 
second  we  will  let  rest  until  he  begins  his 
affirmative. 

1.  One  God  the  Father.  One  self-exist- 
ent, independent,  self-sustaining,  eternal, 
absolute  Spirit,  the  author  of  all  other  ex- 
istences, and  the  cause  of  all  phenomena. 
In  this  we  differ  from  others,  only  in  refus- 
ing to  speculate  as  to  whether  God  is  with- 
out form,  body  or  parts,  or  has  form,  body 
and  parts.  Obeying  the  apostolic  injunc- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


223 


tion,  "avoid  untaught  questions,"  we  are 
pilent  on  a  matter  on  which  the  Bible  is 
cilent. 

2.  One  Lord,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  only 
begotten   son   of   God ;    Deity  manifest  in 
flesh;    the  Divine   Prophet,   source    of    all 
teaching  religion.     We  reject  Joseph  Smith 
as  a  orophet.     Divine  Priest,    the  one  who 
made  an  expiation   for   the  sins  of   every 
human  heing.     Divine  King,  the  only  one 
whose  commands  we  obey  in  religion.    And 
his  commands  are  all  divine.    Not  one  is  a 
non-essential.     We  teach  that  Christianity 
is  loyalty  to  Christ,  a  Divine  person. 

We  do  not  teach  eternal  Sonship,  nor 
anything  about  essences,  substances,  etc., 
for  the  Bible  says  nothing  about  them. 
We  reject  all  the  speculations  of  Trinitarian- 
ism,  Arianism,  Socinianism,  Unitarian  ism. 
and  the  thousand  other  isms,  that  attempt 
to  be  wise  above  what  God  has  revealed. 
We  speak  only  where  theBible speaks,  and 
as  it  speaks.  We  are  silent  when  it  is  silent, 
and  reject  the  confusion  of  the  theological 
Babel,  and  the  jargon  of  Ashdod,  and  use 
only  the  pure  speech  of  Canaan. 

3.  One  Holy  Spirit.    We  teach  that  there 
is  such  a  Divine  being  or  person  as  the  Holy 
Spirit.     We    say   "Spirit,"    not    "Ghost." 
He,  his  and  him,  not  it.    That  He  inspired 
all    persons    that    the    Scriptures    declare 
spoke,  wrote  and  acted  by  inspiration  from 
Adam  to  Christ;  that  he  was  given  to  men 
in  the  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost ;  and  at  the  house  of  Cor- 
nelius.    That  he  was  imparted  by  the  im- 
position of  the  apostles'  hands  in  the  gifts 
that  our  Savior  promised  in  the  last  chap- 
ter of   Mark,   and   in   other   places,   those 
spiritual  gifts  that  existed  in  the  apostolic 
churches.     That    he   inspired    the   divine 
truths  in  the  Scriptures.    That  wherever 
and  whenever  these  divine  truths  influence 
the  spirits  of  men,  the  Holy  Spirit  influ- 
ences the  spirits  of  men,  through   the  di- 
vine truths  that  he  has  revealed    in  the 
Scriptures. 

We  differ  from  the  otner  people  in  reject- 
ing these  three  dogmas:  1.  That  portion  of 
the  religious  world  that  arrogates  to  itself 
the  exclusive  right  tothe  titles  "orthodox" 
and  "evangelical"  teaches  that  in  convict- 
ing and  converting  the  sinner,  and  in  com- 
forting and  sanctifying  the  Christian,  the 
Holy  Spirit  exerts,  on  the  hearts  and  spirits 
of  men,  a  direct  and  immediate  influence, 
in  addition  to  and  distinct  from  any  that 
He  exerts  through  the  divine  truths  that 
He  has  revealed  through  the  Scriptures. 
2  Some  of  this  party  claim  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  given  in  the  baptism  in  Holy 
Spirit,  now  as  He  was  on  the  Day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  at  the  house  of  Cornelius  ;  and 
that  the  baptism  that  is  for  remission  of 
sins,  that  our  Savior  declares  saves,  etc., 
is  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 

3.  The  Latter  Day  Saints  teach  that  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  that  our  Savior  promised 
to  his  apostles  and  disciples,  and  that 
existed  in  the  apostolic  churches,  should 
exist  in  the  Church  of  Christ  now  We 
reject  the  first  dogma  for  these  reasons: 


1.  There  is  not  a  sentence  in  the  bible  that 
even  hints  thatin  convicting  and  converting 
the  sinner,  or  in  comforting  and  sanctifying 
the  Christian,  the  Holy  Spirit  ever  did'in  a 
single  instance,  ever  will,  or  does  now  exert 
any  such  direct  and  immediate  influence, 
in  addition  to  and  distinct  and  different 
from  what  He  exerts  through  the  divine 
truths  that  He  has  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

2.  An  honest,  careful  i-nvestigation  of  the 
Bible  shows  that  all  work  that  is  ascribed 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  except  His  miraculous 
influence,  is  ascribed  to  the  Word  of  God, 
or  the  truth,  proving  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
exerts  all  influence,  except  the  miraculous 
influence,  through  thedivine  truths  that  He 
has  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 

3.  Conviction,   conversion,    sanctification 
and    comforting    are    moral  influences,   in 
which  man  is  a   free  moral  agent.      Such 
influences    can    be    exerted    only    through 
motives  presented  to  the  spirit  of  man  in 
the  truth. 

Man  is  convicted  and  sanctified  through 
hearing,  believing  and  living  the  truth,  as 
the  Scriptures  teach. 

4.  If  conviction,  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation are  to  any  extent   the  results  of  a 
direct    influence   of   the    Holy    Spirit,    in 
addition  to  what  is  accomplished  through 
motives  presented  in  the  truth,  and  not  the 
result  of  a  free  choice  of  the  truth,  by  man's 
spirit,  they  are  so  far  the  acts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  not  of  man's  spirit,  and  man  is 
not  responsible  for  the  absence  or  presence 
any  more  than  a  machine  is  responsible  for 
whatmansstrength  accomplishes  through  it 

5.  If  su<^h  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  what  converts  and  sanctifies  men,  if  God 
is  impartial  He  will  exert  it  on   all   men, 
and  save  all  men,  and  Universalism  is  true. 
Or  if  He  does  not,  he  is  partial,  and  exerts 
it  on  only  part,  and  elects  them   to  eternal 
life,  and  passes  by  the  rest  and  reprobates 
them  to  eternal  death,  and  then  Calvinism 
is  true.      No  Arminian   can   be  consistent 
and  believe  such  a  dogma.     6.    Such  an 
influence    renders    all     preaching    of    the 
Gospel  needless,  for  man  is  converted   by 
an  influence  of  the    Spirit,    distinct    from 
preaching ;  and  absurd,   for  it  can   do  no 
good ;  and  presumptuous,  for  man  tries  to 
accomplish,  by  preaching  the  Gospel,  what 
Ged  alone  can  do  and   does   by   the  direct 
influence  of  His  Spirit. 

7.  If  there  are  in  the  mind  of  one  on 
whom  such  an  influence  is  exerted,  two 
sets  of  impulses,  the  impulses  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  impulses  of  his  own  spirit, 
man  cannot  distinguish  between  the  im- 
pulses of  his  own  erring,  sinful  spirit,  and 
the  impulses  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  result 
has  ever  been,  that  believers  in  such  influ- 
ences have  mistaken  the  impulses  ol  their 
own  spirits,  for  impulses  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  every  delusion,  folly,  absurdity,  and 
crime,  have  been  mistaken  for  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  insanity  and  absur- 
dity of  what  is  called  "  the  power  "  "  sanc- 
tification," "second  blessing,"  "higher  life" 
has  led  to  insanity,  folly,  crime,  and  infamy. 


224 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


8.  If  men  appeal  to  their  feelings  as  a 
proof  that  the  Spirit  exerts  such  a  power, 
we  reply  that  they  measure  themselves  by 
themselves,  and  sanction  their  own  folly, 
and  not  by  the  word  of  God,  that  condemns 
all  such  fanaticism.  All  enthusiasts,  urge 
the  same  proof  as  confidently.  The  lives  of 
those  who  make  the  loudest  professions  of 
such  an  influence,  are  the  most  defective  of 
all  professed  Christians.  The  lives  of  the 
apostles  of  this  dogma  are  the  most  defective 
of  all  ministers.  This  delusion  has  loaded 
Chistianity  with  the  most  infamous  fanat- 
icism and  crime,  and  caused  more  infidelity 
than  all  other  causes  combined.  It  has  led 
to  Shakerism  ;  the  Oneida  Community  ; 
Free  Love  and  pollution. 

We  reject  all  idea  of  any  baptism  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  except  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
and'at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  for  these  rea- 
sons: 

1.  The  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a 
promise,   not  a  command.     A  promise  is 
received,  not  obeyed.      There  is   but  one 
baptism  In  the  church.    Eph.4:5.    Christ 
commanded  men   to   baptize  others.    This 
baptism  that  he  commanded  is  the  one  bap- 
tism in  the  church.     It  is  not  Holy  Spirit 
baptism,  for  Christ  could  not  command  men 
to  baptize  men  in  the  Holy  Spirit  any  more 
than  he  could  command  them  to  create  a 
world. 

2.  Men  were  commanded  to  baptize  oth- 
ers.   This  is  the  one  baptism  that  is  in  the 
church.    Man  can  no  more  obey  a  command 
to  baptize  in  the  Holy  Spirit  than  he  can 
create  a  world.    It  is  not  Holy  Spirit  bap- 

'«m  that  is  the  one  baptism  that  is  in  the 
church. 

3.  The  baptism  that  Christ  commanded, 
and  that  is  the  one  baptism  that  is  in  the 
church,  was  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit.    The  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  not  in  any  name.    The   baptism 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  the  one  baptism 
that  was  commanded   by  Christ  that  men 
vvere  to  obey,  and  that  was  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.    It  is  Dot 
the  one  baptism  in  the  church. 

4.  Holy  Spirit  baptism  was  a  promised 
miracle.    The  one  baptism  in  the  church  is 
not  a  miracle.     And  miracles  have  ceased. 

5.  Holy  Spirit  baptism  was  attended  by 
miracles  and  miraculous  power.    The  one 
baptism  in  the  church  is  not  attended  by 


miracles  or   miraculous  power.     All  ouch 
power  has  ceased. 

6.  Christ  was  the  administrator  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  baptism.    It  was  from  heaven. 
Man  is  commanded  to  administer  the  one 
baptism   in  the  church.    Holy  Spirit  bap- 
tism is  not  the  one  baptism. 

7.  The  scriptures  never  hint  that  more 
than  two  occasions   were  baptisms  in  the 
Holy  Spirit.    Peter  declares,  Acts  xi.  15,  16, 
17,  that  two  occasions,   the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  apostles  at  the  beginning 
or  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on   the  Gentiles  at  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  are  baptisms  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.    Not  a  passage  of  scripture  hints 
that  any  other  occasion  was  a   baptism  in 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

8.  Persons  who  claim  a  baptism  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  to  speak  as  the  Spirit  gives 
them  utterance,  utter  nonsense,  contradict 
the  word  of  God,  contradict  each  other. 
Such  a  claim  is  blasphemous,  and  an  insult 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  whom  they  palm  such 
nonsense,  and  contradictions  of  sense  the 
Bible  and  each  other. 

9.  The  one  baptism  that  is  In  the  church, 
that  is  in  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,   is   water   baptism,    for    it    is    com- 
manded   and    men  are  to  obey  it.     Holy 
Spirit  baptism,  that  was  a  promise,  not  a 
command;  that  was  received,  not  obeyed; 
of  which  Christ  was  the  administrator,  not 
man ;    that  was  not  in    the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit ;  that  was  a 
miracle  that  was  attended  by  miracles,  is 
not  the  one  baptism  in   the  church.    All 
claim  to  it  now  is  unscriptural  and  absurd. 

The  claim  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints  that 
the  gifts  promised  by  our  Savior,  and  that 
existed  in  the  church  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  should  he  in  the  church  now,  we 
will  examine  when  we  refute  our  opponent's 
affirmation  in  the  third  proposition.  In  re- 
gard to  the  trinity  and  the  nature  of  the 
union  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit, 
and  how  they  are  one,  we  are  silent,  for  the 
Bible  is  silent.  It  is  an  untaught  question. 
We  utterly  discard  the  jargon  of  triuita- 
rianism  and  unitarianism  alike,  for  the 
Bible  knows  nothing  of  either.  They  are 
attempts  to  be  wise  beyond  w  hat  is  revealed . 
and  are  plain  violations  of  the  command 
"to  avoid  untaught  questiors."  We  stop 
with  the  words  of  the  scriptnres. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


225 


MR.  KELLEY'S  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  SECOND  PROPOSITION. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN.: — I  shall  first  notice  in  my  ar- 
guments this  evening  some  of  the  things 
which  have  to  be  determined,  in  order  for 
us  to  progress  so  as  to  receive  any  light 
whatever  in  the  discussion  of  this  propo- 
sition. 

It  is  said  in  the  question  that  "the  church 
of  which  I,  Clark  Braden,  ana  a  member,  is, 
In  faith,  doctrine,  teaching,  organization, 
practice  and  ordinanceSj  in  accordance  with 
the  Church  of  Christ  as  it  was  left  perfected 
by  the  apostles."  By  what  rule  are  we  to 
determine  how  the  Church  of  Christ  was 
left  by  the  apostles?  You  will  doubtless 
form  in  your  minds  a  conclusion  as  to  how 
that  is  to  be  determined.  What  record  do 
you  go  to  in  order  to  find  out  how  it  was  left  ? 
The  affirmative  has  said,  in  the  application 
of  this  principle  to  his  church,  and  in  the 
definition  that  he  hasgiven  to  "The  church 
of  which  T,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member," 
that  it  is  like  the  congregations  that  were 
left  scattered  in  different  parts  of  the  earth 
after  the  apostles  had  fallen  asleep.  If  that 
is  true,  where  do  we  find  the  history  of 
those  congregations,  that  will  show  us  just 
where  and  how  they  were  left?  I  judge 
that  my  opponent  will  not  dispute  that,  so 
far  as  the  apostles'  work  was  concerned  in 
perfecting  the  Church,  if  they  did  perfect  it, 
the  history  of  their  work  as  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament  is  the  proper  history  to  go 
to  in  order  to  find  out  what  those  congrega- 
tions were  as  they  were  left.  The  only  way 
then  by  which  we  can  tell  how  the  congre- 
tious  were  left  will  be  to  turn  to  our  New 
Testaments  and  ascertain  from  the  situa- 
tion and  history  as  given  therein,  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  churches,  and  of  what 
the  apostles  did,  thus  learning  from  the 
record  how  the  congregations  were  left, 
and  whether  they  then  filled  the  standard 
of  perfection  in  faith  and  the  attainment  in 
the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  theapos- 
tles  so  much  desired  they  should  enjoy. 

Now,  it  is  one  thihg  to  assume,  as  my  op- 
ponent has,  that  there  were  congregations 
of  believers  left  in  the  world  without  any 
presiding  officers  or  duly  authorized  minis- 
ters, but  instructed  that  they  might  make 
their  own  presiding  officers  and  ministers, 
by  authority  of  the  congregation,  and  it  is 
another  thing  to  prove  it.  It  is  a  little  like 
the  presumption  on  his  part,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  ceased  its  miraculous  power  or 
work,  for  the  reason,  as  he  says,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit,  so  far  as  miraculous  power  was 
concerned,  was  a  miracle,  and  as  miracles 
have  ceased,  therefore  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
ceased  to  operate  upon  the  people.  You 
Bee  both  of  these  are  conclusions  without 
any  proper  basis.  They  are  not  legitimately 
drawn  from  the  New  Testament  Scriptures. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  argument  in  a  single 
one  of  them.  He  starts  out  upon  a  false 


premise'.  That  is,  that  the  miraculous 
manifestations  of  the  spirit  have  ceased. 
That  is  a  false  premise.  That  they 
ceased  with  the  apostles,  too!  It  is 
false  when  we  examine  it  in  the_  light 
of  the  history  as  written  just  subse- 
quent to  the  apostles'  time,  and  false 
from  the  prophetic  history  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. When  we  turn  to Mosheim  and  oth- 
er historians  they  tell  us  that  the  miracu- 
lous manifestations  of  the  Spirit  was  known 
until  the  close  of  the  third  century,  at  least; 
and  yet  all  of  the  apostles  had  fallen  asleep 
long  before  this.  Then,  if  all  the  apostles 
had  fallen  asleep,  and  still  the  spiritual  gifts 
and  miraculous  manifestations  were  in  the 
church,  it  will  be  a  false  assumption  if  he 
shall  infer  or  state  to  the  audience,  as  the  ba- 
sis of  an  argument,  that  they  were  not  to  con- 
tinue after  the  apostles'  time  and  that 
therefore,  we  are  not  to  have  any  thing  of  that 
that  nature,  because,  as  he  says,  there  are  to 
be  no  more  miracles.  The  argument  turns 
upon  the  point:  Where  does  he  get  the  "be- 
cause?" If  he  could  take  up  the  New  Tes- 
tament Scriptures  here  and  read  to  us  that 
there  were  to  be  no  more  miracles  after  thn 
first  age  of  Christianity,  then  his  first  prem- 
ise would  be  good,  because  he  would  have 
a  "because"  upon  which  to  base  it.  But  he 
makes  his  premise,  which  is  not  good,  and 
proves  it  by  a  false  presumption  that  the 
gifts  were  to  cease,  when  he  has  not  a 
single  passage  of  scripture  which  he  can 
stand  by  to  base  it  upon.  Thus  he  stands 
before  the  audience  upon  a  false  premise  to 
begin  with,  and  from  this  he  draws  his  false 
conclusion. 

Now  let  us  examine  and  see  if  this  is  not 
correct.  Unless  he  can  show  that  there  is 
some  passage  of  Scripture,  showing  that 
miracles  were  to  be  confined  to  the  first 
age  of  Christianity,  he  fails.  In  the  first 
place,  Jesus  says,  in  Mark  16th  chapter, 
"Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  snail  be  saved,  but  i:e  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  And  these 
signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe." — Not 
you  to  whom  I  am  talking,  but  the  believer 
in  the  words  that  you  shall  bear.  Well, 
who  were  to  believe?  Those  who  were  to 
be  saved,  evidently.  Is  there  any  promise 
broader  than  that  in  the  whole  Bible  with 
regard  to  salvation?  "Preach  the  Gospel 
to  every  creature,  and  (every  creature)  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ; 
and  these  signs  shall  follow  (every  creature) 
that  believeth."  Now,  if  he  can  show  from 
the  Bible  that  there  is  another  passage  some 
place  saying  that  this  statement  of  Jesus 
referred  to  the  first  ag^  of  Christianity  only, 
and  that  after  the  first  age  of  Christianity 
there  were  to  be  no  miraculous  gifts,  Gospel 
preached,  true  believers  or  anything  of  that 
nature,  tben  he  may  truly  state  to  this 


226 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


audience,  that  there  were  to  be  no  miracu- 
lous manifestations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  let  us  first 
have  some  proof,  and  then  it  will  be  time 
enough  for  assertions. 

He  says  that  he  (his  church)  rejects  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  reason 
that  they  do  not  consider  it  a  means  enter- 
ing into  the  conversion  of  the  sinner;  that 
these  miraculous  manifestations  have  no  in- 
fluence in  the  conversion  of  the  sinner,  or  in 
changing  his  moral  state  in  any  manner. 
He  rejects  the  views  of  the  Saints  for  that 
reason.  And  then  he  rejects  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  believed  in  by  the  ortho- 
dox world,  he  says,  because  that  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  conversion  of  the  sinner 
either.  Why  does  he  make  a  difference, 
then,  in  rejecting  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  we  believe  it,  as  it  is  manifested 
in  the  different. gifts  and  signs,  and  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  believed  by 
Mr.  Wesley  and  others?  This  distinction 
evidently  is  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up 
a  supposed  difference  between  the  views  of 
the  Saints  and  others,  when,  in  fact,  it  does 
not  exist.  It  seerns  to  me,  that,  if  he  rejects 
it  in  their  way,  because  it  does  not  enter 
into  the  conversion  of  the  sinner,  as  he 
thinks,  that  ought  to  cover  also  the  rejec- 
tion with  regard  to  us,  because  we  do  not 
claim  it  enters  into  the  conversion  of  the 
sinner  in  the  sense,  in  which  he  seeks  to 
apply  it.  We  claim,  as  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned, that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  miraculous  manifestations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  for  the  purpose  of  confirm- 
ing the  believer  in  the  Word  of  God  and 
adding  the  graces  to  his  faith,  and  that  was 
what  it  was  for  in  the  first  age  of  Christian- 
ity. Why  do  you  reject  it  for  yourself  for 
then,  Mr.  Braden?  Answer  me  that  ques- 
tion. Because  it  is  not  to  be  used  in  the 
conversion  of  the  sinner,  you  say,  when  it 
was  never  given  for  that  specific  purpose; 
and  truly  you  might  ask,  if  it  had  been 
given  for  the  conversion  of  the  sinner  only, 
why  was  it  poured  out  upon  the  believers 
on  Pentecost  day?  You  reject  it,  because 
it  is  not  given  for  the  conversion  of  the 
sinner,  and  yet  Jesus  gave  it  for  a  different 
purpose.  Why  do  you  not  k^ep  it  to  answer 
the  purpose  for  which  Christ  placed  it  in 
the  church?  Answer  that  question  as  you 
proceed. 

Now,  upon  Pentecost  day  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  poured  out  upon  the  believers.  And  I 
ask,  for  what  purpose?  Evidently  as  a 
blessing;  and  for  the  purpose  of  confirm- 
ing those  in  the  Word,  who  had  already 
accepted  of  Jesus  and  John's  teaching. 
John  the  Baptist  came  teaching,  of  which 
you  are  well  aware,  as  stated  in  the  history, 
saying,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water 
unto  repentance  ;  but  he  that  corneih  after 
me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I 
am  not  worthy  to  bear:  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
In  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  and 
of  Jesus  there  was  something  more  to  be 
attained  and  sought,  than  simply  baptism 
of  the  water.  There  was  something  that 


the  Christian  was  pointed  to,  that  waa 
higher  and  more,  excellent  and  enduring 
than  simply  going  down  into  the  water  and 
coming  up  out  of  the  water.  And  this  ex- 
cellent thing,  that  which  formed  the  great 
central  thought  of  the  Christian  religion, 
was  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit ;  or  the  fact 
that  men  and  women  might  attain  unto  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  order  that,  in  their. lives, 
they  might  be  comforted,  and  that  they 
might  have  that  Spirit  to  confirm  and 
establish  them  in  the  faith  and  keep  them 
unspotted  from  the  evils  of  the  world. 

Now,  this  promise  was  fulfilled  and  veri- 
fied to  the  disciples  of  Jesus  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  We  read  in  the  second  chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  apostles  :  "  Now  when  they 
heard  this  [the  preaching  of  the  apostle 
Peter],  they  were  pricked  in  their  heart, 
and  said  unto  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the 
apostles,  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we 
do?  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent, 
and  be  baptised  every  one  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  re'mission  of, 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gilt  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  What  was  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost?  The  same  thing  that  they  had 
just  witnessed  as  having  been  received  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  "Ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  yet,  Mr. 
Braden  stands  before  you  and  declares  em- 
phatically that  that  was  the  only  instance 
in  which  this  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
manifested  or  given  except  at  the  house- 
hold of  Cornelius.  If  hi  position  is  true, 
then  the  Apostle  Peter,  while  speaking  un- 
der the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  told 
those  people  they  should  receive' this  same 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  when  it  was  not  for 
them,  and  they  did  not,  and  consequently 
he  told  what  was  not  true.  Now,  will  you 
please  clear  this  up?  Peter  told  them  that 
they  should  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  there  was  the  farnw  day  3,000 
added  to  the  church.  Did  they  afterwards 
receive  it,  or  did  he  tell  them  that  they 
should  receive  something  that  they  could 
not  receive?  But  let  me  read  further: 
"For  the  promise  is  untoyou  and  toyourchiJ- 
dren,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  snail  call.  And 
with  many  other  words  did  he  testify  *  d 
exhort,  saying.  Save  yourselves  from  thi; 
untoward  "generation."  "And  they  went 
forth  and  preached  everywhere,  the  Lord 
working  with  them,  and  confirming  the 
word  with  signs  following."  Following 
the  believer  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thus  they  were  "signs"  indeed.  The 
sign  of  the  true  believer. 

IVow,  it  seems  that  the  signs  did  not  go 
beforehand  in  order  to  convert  men.  The 
signs  did  not  go  beforehand  in  order  to 
make  men  believe  the  truth.  Nor  was  that 
the  manner  of  procedure  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  churches  in  the  first  age  of  < 
Christianity  to  any  extent.  Nor  is  it  the 
manner  of  the  establishment  of  the  doc- 
trine and  faith  of  the  Latter  Day  t-ainta 
(the  saints  of  t.o-dsty ),  or  those  who  belong 
to  the  Chim-h  ot  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


227 


Saints; — we  use  the  term  Latter  Day  Saints 
to  distinguish  the  church  from  former  day 
Saints. 

Right  here  I  will  notice  the  argument 
and  "claim  made  for  his  church  on  the  point 
that  all  should  take  the  name  of  Christ. 
What  name?  Does  it  mean  the  entire  name 
of  Christ,  or  simply  the  name  Christ,  or 
God?  Our  Winebrenarian  friends  say  just, 
Church  of  God.  Braden  says,  Church  of 
Christ.  I  take  it,  from  the  third  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  saints, 
that  he  means  that  they  shall  take  the  full 
name;  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  after 
whom  the  whole  family,  both  in  heaven 
and  on  earth,  is  named.  The  epistle 
does  not  say  Christ  simply,  but  "Jesus 
Christ." 

Let  me  ask,  why  do  you  strike  off  the 
name  Jesus  and  say,  "  We  will  just  call  our 
church  Christ  Church?  What  is  your  au- 
thority for  suppressing  the  name  Jesus? 
Please  answer  that  question  and  show  the 
audience  that  if  a  church  takes  the  name  of 
"  Jesus  Christ,"  it  does  not  have  the  name 
of  Christ?  Tell  us  how  it  comes  that  a 
church  that  takes  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  not  as  likely  to  be  called  after  the  name 
of  the,  Only  begotten  of  the  Father  and  of 
whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and 
earth  are  named,  as  a  church  that  simply 
takes  the  name  of  Christ,  or  the  Christian, 
or  Disciple  church?  I  am  now  upou  the 
negative,  and  shall  expect  some  proof  forth- 
coming. 

There  are  a  few  other  things  that  were 
mentioned  in  the  beginning  of  the  remarks 
of  Mr.  Braden  that  I  wish  to  call  your  at- 
tention to,  and  shall  dp  so,  because  I  wish 
to  have  an  understanding  as  we  proceed  in 
this  matter,  so  that  we  can  come  to  a  fair 
issue  in  the  argument. 

There  is  a  difference  of  understanding,  it 
seems,  with  regard  to  Just  what  should  be 
in  the  church.  He  thinks  that  I  will  differ 
with  him  in  regard  to  things  that  ought  to  be 
In  the  church,  and  claim  some  things  that  he 
has  not  in  his  church.  Well,  what  are  some 
of  those  things?  Possibly  it  is  in  some  of 
the  articles  of  fail.h,  possibly  in  the  organ- 
ization of  the  church.  Whatever,  let  him 
point  them  out,  or  the  features  not  in 
his,  that  were  in  the  church  in  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  and  tell  us  why  not? 
If  his  is  stricly  with  the  organization  of 
the  church  as  it  was  left  perfected  by  the 
apostles,  and  we  go  back  to  the  record  of 
the  apostles  to  find  what  they  did  to  perfect 
It,  his  church  will  have  in  it,  as  is  recorded 
here  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Epistle 
of  Paul  to  the  Corinthian  saints,  the  officers 
connected  with  the  church  as  God  set  them 
in  the  same.  Because  how  can  we  get  the 
organization  of  the  church  as  it  was  left 
perfected  by  the  apostles  without  turning 
back  and  reading  what  was  in  theirs,  and 
what  the  apostles  did?  It  is  said  in  this 
twelfth  chapter  of  1  Corinthians:  "Now  ye 
are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in 
particular.  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the 
church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets, 
thirdly  teaches;  after  that  miracles,  then 


gifts  of  healing,  helps,  governments,  diver- 
sities of  tongues.    Are  all  apostles?    Are 
all  prophets?    Are  all  teachers?    Are  all 
workers  of  miracles?    Have  all  the  gifts  of 
healing?    Do  all  speak  with  tongues?    Do 
all  interpret?"    He  argues  there  that  God 
has  given  a  number  of  spiritual  gifts  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  in  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints  here,  in  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
and  among  these  he  has  set  in  the  church 
the  gift,  or   office,  of  an  apostle.     Now, 
when  I  turn    back   to    the   record   of  the 
apostles,  and  wish  to  compare  that  record 
with  the  church  of  which  my  opponent  is  a 
member,  I  ask  him   to  state  whether  his 
church  is  in  agreement  with  the  record  there, 
and  if  not,  why  not?  Doyouhaveapostlesas 
first  officers  in  your  church  as  they  were  first 
officers  in  the  church  of  Christ  as  it  existed 
in  the  first  century?    If  not,  why  not?    Do 
you  have  prophets  also?    Do  you  haveevan- 
gellists,  and  pastors,  and  teachers — inspired 
men  to  perform  duties  as  set  in  the  church 
as  recorded  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Paul's 
letter  to  the  saints  at  Rome?    If  not,  why 
not?    The  Apostle  says  :  "  For  as  we  have 
many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  mem- 
bers have  not  the  same  office,  so  we,  being 
many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and.  every 
one  member  one  of  another.    Having  then 
gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  that 
is  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy,  let  us 
prophesy  according  to  the    proportion    of 
faith  ;  or  ministry,  let  as  wait  on  our  minis- 
tering; or  he  that  teacheth,  on  teaching: 
or  he  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation:  he 
that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity," 
etc.    Here  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  so  far 
as  the  office  of  each  individual  in  the  church 
was  concerned,  they  were  to  magnify  the 
office  in  accordance  with  the  spiritual  gift 
that  God  had  given  to  them  by  which  to 
work  in  the  church.    Now,  is  that  the  way 
that  you  Campbellites  do?    Is  that  the  way 
you  found  these  organizations  left  after  the 
apostles  had  fallen  asleep?    Or  did  you  not 
find  that  there  were  officers  placed  in  tho 
organizations  as  Paul  states  as  recorded  iu 
the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,    wherein    he     teaches     that    he 
ordained  men  as  the  Holy  Ghost  had  called 
them:    "Take  heed  therefore  unto  your- 
selves, and  to  all  the  flock,  over  the  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers." 
He  is  talking  to  the  elders,  teaching  them, 
"To  feed  the  Church  of  God,  which  He 
hath  purchased  with  His  own  blood.    For 
I  know  this,  that  after  my  departing  shall 
grievous  wolves  enter  in  amoung  you,  not 
sparing  the  flock.    Also  of  yourselves  shall 
men  arise,    speaking   perverse   things,   to 
draw  away  diciples  after  them.    Therefore 
watch,  and  remember,  that  by  the  space  of 
three  years  I  ceased  not  to  warn  everyone 
night  and  day  with  tears."    The  apostle 
is   warning  them  against,  the    very   thing 
Braden   is    contending    for,    viz.,    making 
ministers  of  their  "  own  selves." 

Right  in  this  connectiou,  another  thing 
that  my  opponent  stated  before  the  audience 
needs  to  be  examined  iu  order  that  you  may 
see  it  as  it  i».  He  took  up  the  history  aa 


228 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


contained  in  the  Bible,  dividing  it  into 
periods  after  this  order :  from  the  time  of 
Adam  to  the  flood  ;  from  the  flood  to  Abra- 
ham or  to  the  Mosaic  economy  ;  from  the 
Mosaic  institution  of  things  to  the  time  of 
Malachi ;  and  from  Malachi  to  the  day  of 
Pentecost ;  afterwards,  from  the  day  of 
Pentecost  to  the  present  and  futurity,  as 
though,  ever  since  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
there  had  been  an  effulgent  light  in  the 
heavens,  and  that  the  people  had  been 
drawing  nigh  to  this  and  gathering  know- 
ledge from  that  great  light  which  had 
arisen,  and  that  the  world  ever  since  that 
time  had  been  in  the  ascendency,  so  far  as 
truth  is  concerned  and  the  enjoyment  of 
the  highest  blessings  to  be  attained  in  the 
Christian  economy.  Do  you  mean  that, 
Mr.  Braden  ?  Then  you  do  not  believe  that 
the  apostles  prophesied  truly  when  they 
were  writing  their  knowledge  of  things  here 
and  warned  the  people  that  after  their  time 
there  would  come  a  falling  away;  and  that 
the  church  here  should  not  be  a  church 
perfected,  but  a  church  that  would  be  im- 
perfect ;  and  that,  as  reported  in  Revelations 
of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  many  of 
which  had  so  far  gone  out  of  the  way  that 
God  would  not  recognize  them  any  more  as 
in  the  light,  but  gives  them  to  understand 
that  unless  they  repent  He  would  utterly 
cast  them  out  of  His  sight. 

The  apostle  Paul,  here  in  the  20th  chap- 
ter of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  predicts 
that  very  thing,  viz:  that  there  is  to  be  a 
falling  away  from  the  faith.  The  apostacy 
was  plainly  working  then,  and  when  we 
come  to  view  the  lives  ana  teachings  and 
true  characters  of  those  men  who  are  called 
Reformers,  who  have  labored  and  wrought 
to  restore  to  its  original  and  pristiee  beauty, 
— Christianity  as  it  was  at  the  first;  to  at- 
tain the  apostolic  doctrine,  as  taught  by 
Peter  and  Paul ;  they  have  taught  us  very 
clearly  that  the  falling  away  was  so  great 
that  they  had  hardly  a  dead  form  left.  Mr. 
Wesley  says  that  they  had  hardly  a  dead 
form  left.  And  the  reason  he  gives  is, 
that  tbuj  world  turned  heathen  again  after 
the  death  of  the  apostles  and  that  for  this 
cause  raith  was  taken  from  the  earth  and 
Christians  had  no  more  faith  than  the  rest 
of  the  world  ;  therefore,  there  was  no  longer 
the  spiritual  blessing  in  the  church  as  in 
the  first  age  of  Christianity.  See  94,  and 
95,  sermons  of  Wesley.  I  might  refer  also 
to  Mr.  Calvin  for  authority  upon  this. 
When  he  began  the  work  of  what  after- 
wards proved  to  be  the  organization  of 
churches  of  his  peculiar  principles,  he  said  : 
"Our  only  object  is  to  restore  the  doctrines 
of  the  primitive  church,  which  have  been 
corrupted  by  the  Papal  authorities."  That 
was  the  object  as  expressed  in  his  own 
language  with  regard  to  the  beginning  and 
object  of  his  work,  to  restore,  to  reinstate, 
the  pure  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
from  which  there  had  been  a  falling  away. 
So  it  was  with  the  Reformers  all  through. 
They  recognized  clearly  the  fact  that  dark- 
ness had  sprung  up  instead  of  light  and 
that  men  were  without  God  in  the  world. 


But  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  while  one  of  these  Reformers  has  tried 
to  reach  and  restore  the  rituals  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  church,  another  has  tried  to 
attain  to  the  spiritual  life  and  the  comfort- 
ing influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  enjoyed 
by  the  saints  at  the  first ;  and  charged  upon 
others  that  they  had  shut  out  the  light  of 
God  by  laying  too  much  stress  upon  rituals 
and  conforming  too  much  to  the  order  of 
things  in  the  world,  until  it  has  come  to  a 
state  as  confessed,  at  the  synod  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  the  past  year,  that  they 
have  squeezed  the  entire  life  out  of  the 
church  by  adhering  to  their  forms  and  con- 
ventionalities, instead  of  contending  for  the 
life  and  religion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  it  was 
given  in  the  beginning,  and  realized  for  two 
centuries  by  the  early  saints. 

Now  the  position  that  I  occupy  before 
you  is  this :  That  so  far  as  the  ordinances, 
rituals,  forms  and  rules  are  concerned,  as 
laid  down  in  the  new  testament,  found  en- 
joined in  the  word,  we  ought  to  conform  to 
them  but  not  have  them  take  precedence  of 
everything  else ;  and  that  so  far  as  the 
spiritual  light  and  life  is  concerned,  which 
is  spoken  of  in  this  word,  we  ought  to  con- 
form to  that  and  have  it  also.  It  is  a  kind  of 
a  golden  mien  between  the  extremists  who 
have  worked  on  either  side  of  the  question 
Of  what  shall  be  reformed  in  the  church.  You 
remember  that  Mr.  Fox,  at  the  time  when 
he  started  out  had  seen  so  much  of  wrong 
perpetrated  in  the  world  because  of  institu- 
tions that  adhered  only  to  the  rituals  of  the 
church,  and  discarded  any  and  all  actual 
spiritual  life,  that  he  threw  away  these 
and  contended  for  the  spiritual  influences 
only  : — striking  out  everything  in  the  shape 
Of  organization,  and  rituals,  and  everything 
that  would  require  persons  to  do  anything 
towards  conforming  to  the  forms  and  cere- 
monies established  in  the  first  age.  When 
it  came  to  Mr.  Campbell's  turn  he  went  off 
on  another  tangent  and  his  followers  to-day 
adhere  closely  to  the  ordinances  of  baptism 
that  can  be  performed  by  an  individual  in 
water,  because  they  say  that,  that  was  a 
command  ;  but  they  leave  out  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  my  friend,  Mr.  Bra- 
den,  here,  this  evening.  He  says  it  was 
not  a  command  for  us  to  perform  ;  that  we 
should  not  receive  the  baptism  of  the  spirit 
because  it  was  not  a  command  and  bethinks 
that  because  it  was  not  a  command  to  do, 
therefore,  we  could  not  baptize  men  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  should  not  seek  it. 
Well,  let  us  see.  Is  eternal  life  a  com- 
mand? No,  and  yet  we  are  all  to  seek  eter- 
nal life,  and  the  Campbellites,  I  suppose, 
are  seeking  eternal  life  also;  either  in  the 
right  or  wrong  way.  If  we  were  not  to  seek 
eternal  life  because  it  is  not  a  command,  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  great  object  and  pur- 
pose of  Christianity  would  be  lost  entirely. 
But  is  it  nota  command  to  seek  this  spiritual 
baptism?  My  opponent  has  overstepped 
the  bounds  in  both  directions.  Paul  says 
h«re  in  the  14th  chapter  and  1st  verse  of  his 
Corinthian  letter:  "Follow  after  charity 
and  desire  spiritual  gifts,  but  rather  that  yi 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


229 


may  prophecy."  Is  it  not  a  command, 
then,,  to  follow  after  these  things? 

Again,  "  For  he  that  speaketh  in  an  un- 
known tongue  speaketh  not  unto  men  but 
unto  God:  for  no  man  understandeth  him; 
howbeit  in  the  spirit  he  speaketh  mysie- 
ries."  It  is  right,  then,  to  seek  this  spirit, 
C  conclude.  In  the  12th  chapter  the  apos- 
tle gives  us  to  understand  that  for  the  hope 
.  and  spiritual  development  of  those  who  un- 
dertake to  worship  Christ  and  follow  him, 
41  a  manifestation  of  the  spirit  is  given  to 
•every  man  to  profit  withal."  This  mani- 
festation of  the  spirit  is  given  to  the  man 
who  is  unlearned,  to  the  woman  who  is  not 
as  much  of  an  adept  as  another,  for  the 
purpose  of  enlightenment  and  instruction 
through  this  their  particular  gift  from  God 
that  they  may  profit,  not  only  to  their  own, 
but  to  the  advantage  of  the  entire  church  ; 
thus  the  church  may  be  built  up  and  may 
be  made  a  fit  temple  for  the  indwelling  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  by  reason  of  this  spirit 
that  is  to  be  poured  out  upon  each  member, 
and  thus  it  becomes  "even  a  habitation  of 
God  through  the  spirit."  And  remember 
that  it  is  not  miraculous  influences  only,  so 
far  as  outward  manifestations  are  con- 
cerned, in  tongues,  prophecy,  healing,  etc., 
that  come  by  reason  of  this  Holy  Spirit,  but 
it  is  such  manifestations  and  gifts  as -the 
•church  must  absolutely  have  in  order  to 
grow  in  the  graces  and  knowledge  of  Christ — 
•of  wisdom,  knowledge  and  faith.  I  under- 
stand that  the  church  of  my  opponent  has 
none  of  these  gifts  of  wisdom,  knowledge 
find  faith.  Am  I  right?  Now  I  ask  him  to 
answer  these  questions  as  we  proceed  : 

First,  whether  the  spiritual  gifts  spoken 
of  in  the  eighth,  ninth  and  tenth  verses  of 
the  twelfth  chapter  of  Paul's  first  letter  to 
the  Corinthians  is  desired  in  his  church,  or 
are  any  of  them  attained  to  in  his  church  ; 
whether  the  wisdom  spoken  of  there  is ; 
whether  the  knowledge  is;  whether  the 
faith  is  ;  whether  the  other  things  that  are 
spoken  of  in  those  verses  as  belonging  to 
the  early  saints  are  with  them,  and  whether 
they  desire  them  at  the  present  time,  and 
are  they  considered  necessary  by  his  church 
in  order  to  guide  men  and  women  aright? 
The  apostle  teaches, 

"For  to  one  is  given  by  the  spirit  the  word  of  •wis- 
dom; to  another  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same 
spirit;  to  another  faith  by  the  same  spirit;  to  another 
the  (rifts  of  healing  by  the  same  spirit;  to  another  the 
working  of  miracles;  to  another  prophecy;  to  another 
discerning  of  spirits;  to  another  divers  kinds  of 
tongues;  to  another  the  interpretation  of  tongues;  but 
ell  of  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self-same  spirit 
dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will." 

Second,  now  is  this  wisdom  which  was 

given  to  the  church  by  the  spirit  of  God  to 
irect  the  church  then,  to  be  the  guide  of 
the  church  to-day,  as  it  was  anciently  ?  or 
do  you  claim  that  it  was  miraculous  wis- 
dom? 

Third.  If  you  claim  it  was  miraculous 
wisdom,  will  j'ou  jusc  please  stale  to  the 
audience  what  kind  of  wisdom  is  miracu- 
lous, and  what  is  not?  And  so  of  knowl- 
edge? 
Fourth.  If  you  answer  these  questions  in 


the  negative,  will  you  stop  and  tell  us  in 
what  respect  your  church  resembles  the 
early  church? 

I  claim  that  so  far  as  manifestations  of  the 
Spirit  to  the  church  are  concerned,  that  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  is  promised 
by  Jesus  and  by  John,  was  not  to  those 
who  were  gathered  together  on  Pentecost 
day  only,  but  "to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  should  call,"  as  Peter  says.  Not  call 
to  the  miraculous  gifts  or  power,  as  Braden 
has  it,  but  call  to  salvation.  "The  prom- 
ise is  unto  you  and  to  your  children  and  to 
all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call."  Not  extending  to 
the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  only,  as  he  has 
interpreted  Joel's  prophecy,  but  extending, 
as  that  prophecy  did,  to  the  time,  "when  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord  should  cover  the 
earth,  as  do  the  waters  the  sea."  Was  that 
accomplished  in  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age? 
Will  you  please  answer  that  question  as 
you  go  along?  And  not  only  that,  but 
whether  the  following  has  ever  taken  place  : 
"It  shall  come  to  passin  the  last  days,  sailh 
God,  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh;  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophecy,  and  your  old  men  shall 
dream  dreams,  and  your  young  men  shall 
see  visions,  and  on  my  servants  and  on  my 
handmaidens  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit, 
and  they  shall  prophecy."  Was  all  that 
fulfilled  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  age  ?  Or 
has  it  ever  been  fulfilled  since  then?  If  it 
has  not  been  fulfilled,  nor  will  not  be,  who 
limited  it?  Please  tell  us,  so  we  can  have 
an  opportunity  of  comparing  the  pattern  as 
set  forth  in  the  Bible  with  the  views  of  your 
church. 

I  next  call  your  attention  to  some  things 
with  regard  to  the  continuation  of  practices 
and  ordinances  in  the  church.  Now,  I  under- 
stand that  he  claims  that  he  believes  in  the 
church  as  it  was  left  perfected  by  the  apos- 
tles, whatever  that  may  mean.  In  the  first 
place  then,  I  suppose  he  believes  in  the 
church  that  practiced  the  ordinances  as  the 
apostles  practiced  them  ;  doubtless  as 
found  recorded  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the 
Acts  of  the  apostles,  fifteenth  to  twentieth 
verses ;  where  Peter  and  John  went  down 
to  Samaria,  after  that  the  people  had  re- 
ceived the  word  through  the  preaching  of 
Phillip  ;  and  when  they  were  come  down 
prayed  for  them  that  they  might  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Then  laid  they,  their  hands 
on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Also,  the  practice  of .  the  early 
church  as  shown  in  the  instance  of  Ananias, 
who  was  not  an  apostle,  putting  his  hands 
on  Saul,  as  recorded  in  the  ninth  chapter 
and  seventeenth  verse  of  the  Acts  of  the 
apostles,  where  another  instance  is  record- 
ed of  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
through  this  ordinance  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands.  Will  you  answer  this  question? 
Was  Paul  ever  baptized  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 
and  if  so,  when  and  where  ?— Since  you  say 
only  those  at  Pentecost  and  Samaria  were 
so  baptized,  and  Paul  was  not  in  either 
place.  Afterwards  we  have  a  clear  and  de- 
cisive illustration  of  the  practice  of  Paul  in 


230 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


his  ministry,  as  recorded  in  the  nineteenth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  where 
he,  at  a  certain  time,  carne  to  Ephesus  and 
found  a  certain  people  who  were  called  "cer- 
tain disciples,"  and  who  said  they  had  re- 
ceived the  baptism  of  John,  but  had  not  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Spirit.  This  gives  a  fair  il- 
lustration of  the  difference  between  Mr. 
Braden's  teaching  and  mine,  and  the  wide 
difference  existing,  as  I  claim,  between  the 
teaching  of  him  and  his  church,  and  the 
Bible,  and  the  examination  of  this  differ- 
ence is  doubtless  what  this  audience  wants 
to  listen  to  just  now.  It  was  not  difficult 
for  the  apostle  to  find  out  whether  these  per- 
sons calling  themselves  disciples,  were  in 
fact  such.  I  will  read  you  the  history  : 

"And  it  came  to  pass  [here  It  'old  come-to-pass>f 
"again,  rigut  in  the  New  Testament],  that  while 

'  A  polios  was  at  Corinth,  Paul  having  parsed  through 

'  the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus  and  finding  cer. 

'  tain  disciples,  h«  said  unto  them,  have  ye  received 
the  Koly  Ghost  since  ye  believed?  And  they  said 
unt»  him,  wehnvo  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 

•there  be  any   H<  ly  Ghost.    And  he  siid  unto  them. 

'unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized;  and  they  said, 


1  unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily 
•  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  nnto 
'the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which 
'  should  come  after  him,  that  is  on  Christ  Jesus. 
'  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
'  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  when  Paul  had  laid 
'  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them : 
'  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied.  And 
'  all  the  men  were  about  twelve." 

This,  my  friends,  establishes  fully  the 
practice  of  the  early  church.  The  first  in- 
quiry of  the  minister  of  Christ  was,  "Have 
ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  since  ye  be- 
lieved?" and  when  he  was  answered,  no; 
he  proceeded  to  put  them  in  the  way  to 
receive  it.  I  present  this  as  showing  a 
direct  contrast  between  the  practices  of  the 
New  Testament  church  and  the  church  of 
which,  "I,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member  ;  " 
and  as  showing  the  fact  that,  instead  of 
being  in  harmony  with  the  New  Testament 
church,  the  so-called  Christian,  Disciple  or 
Campbellite  church  is  in  direct  antagonism 
to  that,  as  revealed  in  the  record. 

(Time  called). 


MR.  BRADEN'S   SECOND    SPEECH. 


GENTT-EMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMKN  : — We  will  continue  our  defini- 
tion of  our  views: 

IV.  One  faith,  one  system  of  belief,  one 
system  of  teaching  "the   faith  once   deliv- 
ered   unto  the    Saints."    The    Scriptures. 
We  have  sufficiently  explained  itm  matter. 

V.  One  baptism.  We  have  a  I  ready  proved 
that  the  one  baptism  is  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  command, 
is  to  be  obeyed,  is  to  be  performed  on  men 
by  Christians  and  is  baptism  into  water.  We 
practice  immersion  into  water  for    these 
reasons. 

I.  Not  a  sentence  can  becited  in  the  Bible 
that  even  hints  that  God  ever  authorized 
in  any  way,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  the  ele- 
ment water  on  any  human  being  in  a  sin- 
gle instance  for  any  ceremonial,  moral  or 
religious  purpose  1  utterly  defy  any  one  to 
find  such  a  passage. 

II  Baptiam  is  a  form,  a  type,  a  symbol,  a 
figure  of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrection 
It  is  an  object  setting  forth  and  teaching 
Christ's  burial  and  resurrection  It  is  a  like- 
ness of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrection 
It  is  a  memorial  of  Christ's  burial  and  resur- 
rection. It  is  a  monumental  institution,  a 
monument  of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. Pouring  and  sprinkling  are  utterly 
out  of  the  question,  as  much  as  calve's-foot 
jelly  for  the  bread,  and  buttermilk  for  the 
wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  They  utterly 
destroy  the  symbolical,  the  memorial,  the 


monumental  power  of  baptism.  They  de- 
stroy baptism  and  are  no  more  baptism 
than  Romish  Mass  is  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Immersion  alone  is  appropriate,  it  alone  is 
baptism. 

III.  Baptism  is  an  object  lesson,  setting 
forth  the  sinner's  death  to  his  past  sinful 
life,  and  resurrection  to  a  new  and  right- 
eous life.    Pouring  and  sprinkling  utterly 
destroy   this  lesson  and   destroy  baptism. 
They  are  not    baptism.    Immersion    alone 
teaches  this  lesson.    It  alone  is  baptism. 

IV.  In  baptism  persons  went  down  into 
the    water.    Idiotic  if  they  were    merely 
sprinkled  or  poured.    Persons  of  common 
sense  never  go  down  into  the  water  for  such 
acts.    They  do  and  must  to  be  immersed. 
Immersion     is     baptism.      Pouring     and 
sprinkling  are  not. 

V.  Persons  como  up  out  of  the  water 
after   baptism.    They  never  do  after  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling.    They  always  do  after 
immersion.    Immersion  is  baptism.    Pour- 
ing and  sprinkling  are  not  baptism: 

VI.  Jesus  was  baptized  in  Jordan.  A  cor- 
rect rendering  would  be  "into  the  Jordan." 
He  was  immersed    Pouring  and  sprinkling 
are  out  of  the  question. 

VII  Baptism    was    where    there    "wa» 
much  water."     It  is  needed  for  immersion. 
It  is  not  for  sprinkling  or   pouring.     Per- 
sons were  immersed,  not  poured  or  sprink- 
led 

VIII  Baptism  is  likened  to  a  birth.  Pour- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Z'dl 


ing  and  sprinkling  are  utterly  out  of  the 
•question.    Immersion  is  like  a  birth. 

IX.  Baptism  is  called  a  burial.     Persons 
are   buried  in  immersion.    Not  in  pouring 
•or  sprinkling. 

X.  An    overwhelming    of  sufferings    is 
called  a  baptism.     It  was  not  a  sprinkling 
or  a  pouring  of  sufferings. 

XI.  Baptism   is  called  a  bath,  a   laver. 
Immersion  is  such.    Pouring  and  sprinkling 
are  not. 

XII.  In  every  instance  in  which  the  ele- 
ment water  alone  was  used  in  the  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Israelite  ritual  or  religious  acts, 
it  was  used  in  immersion  alone.     Blood  and 
the  cleansing    water,  or  lye,    alone    were 
sprinkled. 

For  these  reasons  we  reject  pouring,  or 
sprinkling,  and  accept  only  immersion.  All 
pai'ies  in  creed  and  practice  accept  immer- 
sion as  baptism.  We  are  orthodox  and 
caiholic  and  accept  what  is  catholic  and 
uni  ersal,  and  that  alone. 

We  teach  that  a  person  who  believes  the 
gospel  with  his  whole  heart — who  has  re- 
pented of  his  sins  with  that  godly  sorrow 
which  needs  not  to  be  regretted — who  has 
confessed  Christ  with  his  mouth — is  a  scrip- 
tural subject  for  scriptural  baptism,  and  he 
alone.  Some  teach  that  an  infant  that  is 
too  young  to  believe  the  gospel  with  the 
whole  heart,  to  repent  with  a  godly  sorrow 
for  past  sins  and  to  confess  Christ  with  the 
mouth,  is  a  scriptural  subject  for  scriptural 
baptism. 

We  reject  such  a  dogma  for  these  reasons: 

I.  Not  a  sentence  of  scripture  can    be 
found  that  even  hints  any  authority  for  the 
baptism  of  an  infant;  not  a  command,  not 
a  teaching,  not  an  example,  not  a  hint  of  it. 

II.  In  every  case  of  baptism  recorded  in 
the    Bible,  the  narrative  shows  that  the 
persons  baptized  were  believing  penitents. 

III.  The  design  and  object  of  baptism 
Utterly  forbid  all  idea  of  infant  baptism. 

Iv.  The  most  wretched,  far-fetched,  spe- 
cial pleading  and  pettifogging  in  human 
speech  is  the  attempt  to  sustain  infant  bap- 
tism. 

V.  Infant  baptism   has  not  a   shred  of 
warrant  in  reason,  common  sense  or  scrip- 
ture. 

VI.  The  absurd  and  contradictory  rea- 
sons urged  for  infant  baptism  show  its  utter 
fallacy. 

We  teach  that  the  gospel  of  Christ  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  all  who  be- 
lieve it.  Romans  1:16.  That  men  must 
hear  the  gospel  of  Christ.  "How  shall 
they  believe  on  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard."  Romans  10: 14.  And  "Faith  comes 
by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of 
God."  Romans  10:17.  That  "With  the 
heart  man  believes  unto  righteousness." 
Romans  10: 10.  That  "God  commands  all 
men  everywhere  to  repent."  Acts  17:30. 
That  men  should  repent  of  their  past  sins 
that  "  Godly  sorrow  that  works  a  reforma- 
tion not  to  be  regretted."  II  Cor.  7  : 10. 
That  "  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made 
tin  to  salvation."  Rom.  10:10.  This  is  be- 
lieved by  all  parties. 


We  teach  also  that  the  one  who  has  been 
begotten  by  the  spirit  through  the  word  in 
believing,  is  born  of  the  water  and  spirit  in 
baptism  ;  that  the  one  who  has  believed  and 
been  baptized  is  saved  from  his  past  sins ; 
that  penitent  believers  must  be  baptized 
into  the  remission  of  past  sins  ;  that  peni- 
tent believers  must  arise  and  be  baptized, 
washing  away  their  past  sins,  calling  on 
the  namje  of  the  Lord  ;  that  penitent  believ- 
ers are  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ; 
that  they  are  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism; 
that  they  are  buried  to  sin  in  baptism  ;  that 
they  arise  out  of  baptism  to  a  new  life ;  that 
penitent  believers  are  made  free  from  sin 
when  they  obey,  in  baptism,  the  figure, 
form,  symbol  or  type  of  the  teaching,  the 
burial,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  delivered 
unto  them. 

That  men  are  children  of  God  through 
faith  when  they  put  on  Christ  in  baptism. 
That  baptism  now  saves  us  in  the  sense  of 
pardon  of  past  sins,  as  the  answer  or  re- 
quirement of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God. 

Our  position  is  this  :  The  gospel  law  of 
pardon  was  first  preached  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  men  to 
preach  it  as  it  was  then  preached  in  all  and 
every  instance.  That  since  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, when  persons  have  been  properly 
instructed  in  the  Jaw  of  pardon,  immersion 
in  water,  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  condition  of  the  re- 
mission of  past  sins,  to  one  who  has  believ- 
ed the  Gospel  of  Christ,  with  the  whole 
heart,  who  has  repented  of  -past  sins  with 
a  godly  sorrow,  and  who  has  confessed 
Christ  with  the  mouth. 

We  teach  it  for  these  reasons.  I.  In  the 
first  transgression,  in  Eden,  man  became  a 
sinner  through  hearing  falsehood,  believing 
falsehood,  desiring  the  results  of  falsehood 
and  obeying  the  teachings  of  falsehood,  in 
violating  the  positive  command,  "Thou 
shalt  not  eat."  He  returns  by  retracing  his 
steps,  hearing  the  Gospel,  believing  the 
Gospel,  repenting,  confessing  Christ,  and 
obeying  the  truth  in  obeying  the  positive 
command — baptism.  II.  The  en  tire  man  is 
changed  in  each  case.  Believing  falsehood 
changed  man's  beliefs;  desiring  the  re- 
sults of  falsehood,  changed  man's  desires' 
his  heart ;  disobeying  a  positive  command, 
changed  man's  volitions,  his  conduct; 
punishment  changed  his  condition,  his 
state.  In  like  manner  believing  the  truth 
changes  man's  beliefs ;  repentance,  his 
heart ;  confession,  his  position  before  men 
and  divine  law  ;  baptism  changes  man's  vo- 
lition, his  conduct  ;  pardon  changes  his 
state.  III.  The  entire  man  is  tested  in  each 
case.  Beliefof  falsehood  wasatestof  mind, 
reason,  judgement;  desiring  the  results  of 
falsehood  was  a  test  of  the  heart ;  disobe- 
dience of  a  positive  command  was  a  test  of 
the  will.  In  like  manner  belief  of  truth 
tests  man's  mind,  reason,  judgment.  Re- 

Eentance  tests  his  heart,  and  baptism  tests 
is    will.    IV.  Disobedience  to  a  positive 
command  was  before  and  in  order  to  pun- 
ishment, in  the  first  transgression.    Obe- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


dience  to  a  positive  command  is  before  and 
in  order  to  the  removal  of  punishment  in 
man's  conversion.  V.  In  John's  work  pre- 
paring for  Christ,  baptism  was  into  refor- 
mation, into  remission.  VI.  Jesus  said 
men  are  begotten  by  the  Spirit,  through 
hearing  his  words,  and  believing  the  truth; 
and  born  of  the  water  and  Spirit  in  baptism. 
VII.  Jesus  said,  "he  that  believes  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved"  from  his -past  sins. 
In  Matthew's  account  of  the  same  discourse 
he  tells  us  that  this  baptism  was  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 
It  was  water  baptism.  VIII.  Peter  said  to 
converted  believers  "Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized unto  the  remission  of  sins."  IX.  The 
penitent  praying  Saul  was  told  to  "Arise 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  X.  Peter 
who  has  to  tell  Cornelius  "what  he  must  do 
to  be  saved,"  preached,  Cornelius  believed 
Peter  commanded  him  to  be  baptized  in 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  XL  The 
jailor  asked  Paul  what  he  must  do  to  be 
saved.  Paul  told  him  to  believe,  and  bap- 
tized him.  XII.  Baptism  is  recorded  as  an 
essential  element  in  every  conversion  as 
much  so,  as  faith.  On  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost,— Lydia,  Saul,  the  Eunuch,  the  Sa- 
maritans, Cornelius,  the  jailor,  the  house- 
holds of  Stephanas,  Crispus,  Gains,  the 
Romans,  Corinthians,  Epbesians,  Colossi- 
ans,  the  language  of  Paul  to  Titus,  the 
language  of  Peter.  XIII.  The  Romans  were 
baptized  into  Christ's  death.  The  blood  of 
Christ  is  met  in  hit,  death.  Were  united 
with  Christ  in  baptism,  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death.  Were  buried  to  sin  in  baptism 
and  rose  to  walk  a  new  life.  Were  made 
free  from  sin  in  obeying,  in  baptism,  the 
symbol  of  the  doctrine  delivered  to  them, 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  XIV. 
The  Galatians  put  on  Christ  in  being  bap- 
tized into  him.  XV.  The  Ephesians  are 
loid  that  Christ  cleansed  the  church  by  the 
washing  the  laver,  bath  of  water,  baptism, 
through  the  word.  XVI.  The  Colossians 
were  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  and 
rose  through  faith,  to  walk  a  new  life. 
XVII.  As  the  Israelites  were  freed  from 
Fiiaroah  and  came  under  Moses  in  the  bap- 
tism unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  sea,  so  we 
are  freed  from  sin  and  come  unto  Christ  in 
being  baptized  into  Christ.  XVIII.  We 
aie  saved  by  the  washing,  laver,  bath  of  re- 
generation, baptism,  and  the  renewal  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  belief,  being  begotten  by  the 
Spirit  through  the  word.  XIX.  Baptism 
saves  us  as  the  answer  or  requirement  of  a 
good  conscience  towards  God.  XX.  If  we 
arrange  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  in 
pairs  we  can  see  what  they  are.  Persons 
are  begotten  by  hearing  the  words  of  the 
Spirit  (faith)  and  born  of  water  and  Spirit 
(baptism).  He  that  believes  (faith)  and  is 
baptized  (baptism)  is  saved.  Believing 
penitents  (faith)  are  told  to  be  baptized  into 
remission  (baptism).  Believing  Saul  (faith) 
is  told  to  arise  and  wash  away  his  sins 
(washing  of  regeneration  baptism)  in  bap- 
tism. Cornelius  believed  (faith)  and  was 
baptized  in  water  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 


(baptism)  as  what  he  was  todo  to  be  saved. 
The  eunuch  believed  (faith)  and  was  bap- 
tized (baptism).    The  Samaritans  believed 
(faith)  and  were  baptized  (baptism).    The 
jailor  believed  (faith)   and    was    baptized 
(baptism).     The  Romans  believed  (faith) 
and    were    baptized    into   Christ's   death 
united  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death 
(in  baptism),  obeyed  (in  baptism)  the  sym- 
bol of  the  doctrine,  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  The  Ephesians  were  cleansed 
by  the    laver    bath    of  water,    (baptism) 
through  the  word  (faith).     The  Galatians 
were  children  of  God  through  faith  having 
put  on  Christ  in  being  baptized  into  Christ. 
The  Colossians  were  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism  rose  to  a  new  life  through  faith. 
We  are  saved  by  the  laver  both  washing  of 
regeneration  (as  Paul  washed  away  his  sins 
in  baptism)  and  the  renewal  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  faith.    Baptism,  as  an  act  of  faith, 
saves  us  as  the  answer  or  requirement  of  a 
good  conscience  towards  God.    XXI.  The 
baptism    mentioned    in-  these  couplets    is 
water  baptism.    It-was  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the 
name  of  Christ — in  water — in  the  name  of 
the  Lord — here  is  water — a  laver  a  bath— a 
washing  — a   command — administered    by 
man,      not     miraculous,     not      attended 
with    miraculous     power.     It    was    the 
one     baptism.      Baptism     in     the     Holy 
Spirit  that  is  a  miraculous  promise,    not 
a  command ;    received,    not  obeyed  ;    that 
is  administered    by   Christ    alone— was   a 
miracle    and    attended   with    miraculous 
power,  is  utterly  out  of  the  question.    XXII. 
Then  we  teach  that  obedience  to  a  positive 
ordinance  baptism  occupies  the  same  posi- 
tion, in  order,  in  man's  return  to  God,  that 
disobedience  to  a  positive  ordinance,  "Thou 
shall  not   eat,"    did    in  man's  departure. 
That  obedience  to  a  positive  ordinance  is 
before  and  in  order  to  a  removal  of  punish- 
ment, in  the  same  sense  that  disobedience 
to  a  positive  ordinance  was  before  and  in 
order  to  infliction   of  punishment  in  the 
transgression.  That  as  man  was  not  punish- 
ed when  he  believed  falsehood,  nor  when  he 
desired  its  results,  and  not  until  he  had 
arrayed  his  will  against  God's  positive  com- 
mand ;  and  in  his  actions  violated  his  positive 
command;  so  in  conversion,  the  penalty  is 
not  removed  when  man  believes  or  for  faith 
only,  nor  when  he  repents,  but  when  he 
submits  his  will  to  God's  will,  in  his  posi- 
tive ordinance  baptism,    and  by  his  acts 
obeys  this  ordinance  and  is  born  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  saved  from  his  past  sins, 
baptized  into  remission,  washes  away  his 
sins,  is  made  free  from  sin,  is  baptized  into 
Christ,  is  saved  by  the  laver  of  regeneration, 
is  cleansed  by  it,  saved  by  baptism  in  meet- 
ing the  requirements  of  God's  law  and  has 
a  good  conscience  toward  it. 

We  teach  that  faith  is  a  means  of  man's 
justification.  We  reject  the  dogma  that 
man  is  justified  by  faith  only,  for  these 
reasons:  I.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  declare 
that  man  is  justified  by  faith  only.  The 
"only"  is  an  interpolation.  II.  The  Scrip- 
tures nowhere  declare  that  man  is  justified 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


233- 


by  faith  without  works  of  obedience  to  the 
law  of  Christ.  Deeds  of  law  have  no  refer- 
ence to  deeds  of  the  law  of  Christ.  III. 
The  Scriptures  declare  that  man  is  justi- 
fied by  ten  different  things  and  faith  in 
one  of  them.  IV.  Faith  is  an  act  of  obe- 
dience to  the  law  of  Christ,  a  work  as  much 
as  baptism.  V.  The  word  of  God  declares, 
"Man  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by  faith 
only."  We  believe  this  and  not  sectarian 
theology  which  flatly  contradicts  God's 
word  in  saying,  "Man  is  not  justified  by 
works,  but  by  faith  only." 

The  sixth  item  or  plank  is  one  hope 
though  the  name  of  Christ.  It  embraces 
hope  of  pardon  and  the  Spirit  through  the 
word  in  the  case  of  the  sinner — eternal  life 
and  the  resurrection  and  heaven  in  the  case 
of  the  Christian,  who  is  faithful  in  a  holy, 
righteous  life  to  the  end. 

The  seventh  item  or  plank  is  the  one  body 
or  "The  Church  of  Christ."  We  find  that 
there  were  two  classes  of  persons  in  the 
church  in  the  apostolic  age.  There  were 
two  kinds  of  work.  One  required  miracu- 
lous powers ;  the  other  did  not.  The 
miraculous  was  extraordinary,  temporary, 
to  endure  until  the  New  Testament  church 
was  perfected,  and  the  perfect  word  of  God 
was  completed  in  the  New  Testament.  Then 
this  miraculous  power  and  all  its  work 
ceased ;  and  the  men  who  possessed  it 
ceased  out  of  the  church.  This  removes 
apostles,  prophets,  who  preach  by  inspira- 
tion, and  all  miraculous  work  and  persons 
possessing  miraculous  power.  It  leaves 
evangelists,  who,  as  uninspired  preachers, 
proclaim  the  Gospel,  that  was  perfected  by 
the  inspired  apostles,  to  the  world.  Then 
overseers  and  servants  or  deacons.  These 
two  classes  of  officers  are  generally  termed 
"Elders,"  because  chosen  from  old  men. 
They  and  the  evangelists  are  called  "shep- 
herds," because  they  fed  the  flock.  We 
reject  episcopacy  over  more  than  one  con- 
gregation, and  all  orders  not  embraced  in 
evangelists,  overseers  and  deacons.  We 
reject  creeds,  councils  and  all  ecclesiastical 
hierarchies.  The  local  congregation  is  the 
master  of  its  own  affairs  in  all  matters  of 
faith1,  practice  and  discipline. 

The  eighth  plank  is  the  one  name.  Indi- 
vidual followers  should  bear  this  one  name, 
the  name  of  Christ,  in  being  called  "  Christ- 
ians." The  Church  should  bear  this  one 
name  of  Christ  in  being  called  "  The  Church 
of  Christ,"  or, "  The  Church  of  God."  Thus 
we  stand  on  the  divine  platform  of  eight 
planks  laid  down  by  Paul,  so  we  proclaim 
these  eight  items  to  the  world. 

We  do  not  preach  Trinitarianism  because 
it  is  an  attempt  to  be  wise  beyond  what  is 
written.  We  reject  unitarianism  because  it 
denies  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  that  he  was 
divinity  manifest  in  human  form.  We 
have  rejected  total  hereditary  depravity 
because  unscriptural  and  absurd.  We  are 
not  Pelagians,  for  we  1  elieve  in  inherited 
depravity  of  man's  physical,  mental  and 
moral  nature.  We  reject  all  idea  of  inherit- 
ed sinfulness  or  guilt,  and  the  idea  that 
inherited  depravity  can  be  total.  We  have 


rejected  all  idea  of  veiigefulness  on  the  part 
of  God,  and  all  horrible  pictures  of  punish- 
ment, gross  ideas  of  hell  aud  punishment, 
but  are  not  Universalists.  We  believe  that 
there  is  punishment  of  sin  here  and  here- 
after, and  that  the  finally  impenitent  will 
be  eternally  lost.  We  have  rejected  absurd- 
ities of  human  inability,  that  man  can  do 
nothing  in  hearing  and  obeying  God's  word  ; 
ideas  of  substitutionary  righteousness  in 
the  sense  that  Christ's  righteousness  and 
obedience  will  be  accepted  instead  of  what 
we  should  and  can  do.  Yet  we  believe  that 
Christ  died  for  us,  made  an  atonement  for 
us,  and  is  our  mediator  and  expiation.  But 
that  he  did  this,  not  to  do  our  righteousness 
for  us,  but  to  enable  us  to  be  pardoned  and 
do  our  own  righteousness,  and  by  obeying 
Him,  grow  up  into  the  character  we  should 
have. 

We  have  rejected  the  absurd  ideas  tha.t 
conversion  is  a  miracle.  Also  absurd  ex- 
periences, and  relying  on  our  own  feelings 
for  evidence  of  pardon.  We  take  God  at 
His  word.  We  obey  Him  and  we  take  Hia 

Sromise  of  pardon  as  the  evidence  of  pardon, 
ur  evidence  is  divine,  not  human.  We 
reject  mourners'  benches,  seekers'  circles, 
mourning  for  days  or  years,  all  idea  that 
God  has  to  be  converted  by  penance  on  th» 
part  of  the  sinner,  before  he  will  pardon. 
We  hold  our  protracted  meetings  just  as 
the  apostles  held  theirs.  Preach  the  same 
ideas.  Tell  persons  the  same  things. 
Proclaim  the  same  commands.  Make  the 
same  promises.  We  tell  persons  believe 
the  Gospel,  believe  with  the  whole  heart, 
repent  with  a  Godly  sorrow,  confess  Christ, 
with  the  mouth  be  baptized  into  remission. 
We  organize  them  into  churches  exactly  aa 
the  apostles  did,  with  the  same  officers  and 
services.  Break  the  loaf  on  each  first  day 
as  they  d  id.  Build  each  other  up  in  Christian 
knowledge  and  life,  by  teaching,  exhorta- 
tion, songs,  prayers,  reading  the  scriptures, 
and  live  as  tiie  scriptures  require.  Thus  I 
prove  that  we  are  identical  in  faith,  ordi- 
nances, organizations,  teaching,  worship, 
practice,  and  duties  with  the  Church  of 
Christ  as  left  completed  by  the  apostles 
of  Christ. 

We  will  notice  briefly  some  things  said 
by  my  opponent.  I  will  first  remind  him 
that  the  New  Testament  is  our  authority  in 
regard  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  Not  the 
traditions  of  what  are  called  "the  fathers." 
There  is  no  issue  that  there  were  miracu- 
lous powers  in  the  church  in  the  days  of  th« 
apostles.  The  issue  is  this  :  "Did  the  apos- 
tles, in  giving  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
the  New  Testament,  ordain  that  they  should 
remain  in  the  church  as  a  permanent  fea- 
ture of  the  church  they  ordained  in  the  New 
Testament?"  There  is  no  disputing  the 
fact  that  Jesus  promised  that  signs  should 
attend  certain  persons.  The  issues  are, 
"  were  they  to  attend  the  preaching  of  more 
than  believing  apostles?  Were  they  to  re- 
main perpetually  in  the  church?"  We  are 
glad  to  hear  him  say  that  miraculous  power 
wag  not  given  to  convert  those  to  whom  it 
was  given.  See  If  he  does  not  back  out  of 


234 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


that  before  we  are  done.  "  The  last  days  " 
in  Joel's  promise  were  the  last  days  in  the 
Mosaic  dispensation.  Peter  declares  that 
"  this  "  series  of  events  at  which  you  are  so 
amazed  "is  that"  series  of  events  "that 
was  promised  by  Joel,"  and  that  Christ  had 
shed  forth  that  series  of  miraculous  dis- 
plays which  they  saw  or  heard.  Peter  de- 
clared that  Joel's  promise  was  to  persons 
among  all  flesh  that  "God  should  call." 
That  they  should  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
a  gift.  There  were  two  manifestations  of  this 
miraculous  influence,  baptism  in  the  spirit, 
poured  forth  by  Christ  on  two  occasions, 
and  spiritual  gifts  received  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  apostle's  hands.  There  is  no  dis- 
pute that  there  were  spiritual  powers  in  the 
Corinthian  church ;  nor  tnat  tlley  were  ex- 
horted to  desire  the  best  of  these  gifts 
while  they  remained  in  the  church.  I  be- 
lieve Paul  when  he  says  "there  is  a  more 
excellent  way  "  than  exercising  the  best  of 
these  spiritual  gifts.  My  opponent  does  not. 
I  desire  "  the  more  excellent  way."  He 
does  not.  We  have  apostles  in  our  church, 
just  aw  we  have  Christ  in  our  church,  by 
their  words,  their  law,  their  inspired  utter- 


ances. We  have  prophets  in  the  same  way. 
We  do  not  substitute  Joe  Smith's  fraud,  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  as  the  "fullness  of  the- 
gospel,"  for  Christ's  law,  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Nor  do  we  substitute  Mormon  im- 
postors for  the  apostles  and  prophets  of  the- 
New  Testament.  We  have  evangelists, 
shepherds  and  teachers  in  our  church,  who 
take  God's  word  as  their  sole  guide,  for  it 
"makes  them  perfect,  and  thoroughly  fin- 
ishes them  to  all  good  works."  We  do  not 
have  Mormon  impostors  who  pretend  to  be 
inspired,  and  we  refuse  to  follow  the  lying 
vagaries  of  such  instead  of  the  perfect  word 
of  God.  Baptism  in  the  spirit  was  a  prom- 
ise. We  learn  from  the  history  of  Christ's 
administration  of  it  that  it  ushered  in  tho 
proclamation  of  the  gospel  to  Jews  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  proc- 
lamation of  the  gospel  to  Gentiles  at 
the  house  of  Cornelius.  We  learn  from  the 
Bible  history  its  period  of  existence.  W» 
learn  from  the  context  the  meaning  of 
Paul's  language ;  the  wisdom  and  knowl- 
edge that  were  to  pass  away,  were  the  wis- 
dom and  knowledge  imparted  by  inspira- 
tion, mentioned  in  the  previous  context. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  SECOND   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MOHEJIATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:— I  am  <g;lad  we  are  going  to 
have  a  discussion.  I  have  been  here,  this 
is  the  eleventh  evening  now,  and  we  have 
not  had  a  discussion  yet;  he  failed  even  to 
undertake  to  meet  the  issue  in  the  other 
question.  But  it  seems  we  are  to  have  an 
issue  in  this,  and  upon  that  issue  we  are  to 
have  a  discussion.  The  negative  will  not 
fail  to  meet  tho  issue  this  time,  I  assure 
you. 

I  call  attention  to  the  last  remark  of  the 
speaker  with  regard  to  the  wonderful  '"seed" 
or  the  germ  which  had  in  its  growth  proved 
to  be  the  culmination  of  the  work  of  what 
the  Christian  world  has  been  foolishly  con- 
tending for,  as  he  thinks,  forlo,  these  many 
years.  The  culmination  is  in,  that  it  has 
gone  to  seed  in  "Mormonism."  What  is  it 
that  he  says  is  the  seed  of  Mormonism? 
The  belief  in  the  power  and  regenerating 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  seems  to 
me  the  seed  is  not  a  very  bad  one,  then. 
All  of  this  talk  about  Mormonism  is  be- 
cause we  claim  that  men  ought  to  be  blessed 
with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  if  they  have  the 
Spirit  of  God  ;  if  they  are  blessed  with  the 
gift  of  wisdom,  let  them  be  wise  servants  ; 
if  with  the  gift  of  knowledge,  let  them  use 
it;  if  the  gift  of  faith  or  any  other,  Jet  it 
be  properly  exercised  ;  and  if  that  is  "Mor- 


monism," and  the  prayerful  desire  for  the- 
Holy  Spirit  by  the  churches  "the  seed," 
was  not  the  doctrine  that  Paul  and  Jesua 
and  Peter  taught  Mormouism  also?  Was 
the  full  light  of  the  gifts  taught  by  Jesus 
and  the  apostles,  "Mormonism  gone  to 
seed?"  Wiil  you  please  answer  that  to- 
morrow night?  If  they  taught  these  spir- 
itual gifts  just  like  I  am  teaching  them, 
and  you  call  mine  the  result  of  the  faith  and 
the  worship  of  the  various  seeded  organiz- 
ations, or  "Mormonism gone  to  seed,"  what 
do  you  call  theirs  ?  Because  certainly  they 
taught  the  same  things  that  I  have  been 
trying  to  teach  here,  and  if  they  did  not,  it 
is  with  you  to  point  out  the  difference. 

I  call  your  attention  now  to  the  text  that 
I  quoted  in  my  first  speech :— "Follow  after 
charity  and  desire  spiritual  gifts,  butrather 
that  ye  may  prophesy."  Well,  but  "yet," 
he  says,  "I  show  unto  you  a  more  excellent 
way."  Oh  no,  Mr.  Braden,  this  was  after 
he  was  going  to  show  a  more  excellent  way. 
That  was  said  as  recorded  in  the  twelfth 
chapter;  this  is  the  fourteenth  I  am  quot- 
ing. This  is  an  exhortation  made  after  the 
reference  to  the  more  excellent  way.  Here 
it  will  be  proper  to  stop  and  enquire  what 
this  "more  excellent  way"  is. 

"Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
members  in  particular.  And  God  hath  set 


TIIE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  seconda- 
rily prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that 
miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  gov- 
ernments, diversities  of  tongues.  Are  all 
apostles?  are  all  prophets?"  "But  covet 
earnestly  the  best  gifts ;  and  yet  show  I 
unto  you  a  more  excellent  way."  Then 
Braden  says  the  apostle  goes  on  and  shows 
the  more  excellent  way.  That  is,  that  proph- 
ecies shall  fail,  tongues  shall  cease,  and 
whether  there  be  knowledge  it  shall  vanish 
away.  That  is  the  more  excellent  way  my 
opponent  thinks,  outlined  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter.  Then  I  turn  to  the  first  part  of 
the  fourteenth  chapter,  after  he  had  given 
them  the  more  excellent  way,  according  to 
his  wise  interpretation,  and  get  the  most 
excellent  way.  Now,  Mr.  Braden,  you  re- 
member to-morrow  night,  and  give  us  the 
most  excellent  way.  "Follow  after  charity, 
and  desire  spiritual  gifts,  but  rather  that 
ye  may  prophesy."  According  to  your  in- 
terpretation, what  comes  last  is  the  best; 
and  by  this,  after  he  had  given  them  the 
more  excellent  way,  according  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  that  clause,  as  any  of  you  can 
see  by  turning  and  reading  it,  he  then  pro- 
ceeded to  give  them  the  most  excellent  way. 
And  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  this  letter  was  not  divided  into 
chapters  or  verses  when  the  apostle  Paul 
wrote  his  letter  as  it  is  found  here.  These 
divisions  are  of  a  comparatively  modern 
date.  The  apostle  sent  this  letter  entire  to 
the  Corinthian  Church,  and  in  it  he  gives 
them  here,  as  recorded  in  the  twelfth  chap- 
ter according  to  Mr.  Bradeu's  interpreta- 
tion— first,  the  excellent  way ;  second,  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter  he  gives  them  the  more 
excellent  way ;  third,  in  the  fourteenth 
chapter  he  gives  them  the  most  excellent 
way ;  and  when  he  gets  to  the  most  excel- 
lent way,  it  is,  "Follow  after  charity,  and 
desire  spiritual  gifts,  but  rather  that  ye  may 
prophesy."  He  will  find  out  before  we  get 
through  that  "yet  snow  I  unto  you  a  more 
excellent  way,"  is  in  accordance  with  the 
interpretation  that  I  gave  at  Wilber,  that 
then  I  was  correct ;  and  I  will  try  and  make 
it  clear  before  this  discussion  closes.  But 
of  this  I  shall  particularly  speak  another 
time.  The  apostle  does  not  occupy  the  ab- 
surd position  of  teaching  three  ways  as  my 
opponent  would  have  us  believe,  but  he 
teaches  one  only,  and  that  is  taught  in  all 
of  these  chapters. 

When  my  time  was  called  I  was  ex- 
amining the  practice  of  the  church  as  found 
in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of 
the  apostles,  where  Paul,  in  addressing 
some  of  the  people  at  Ephesus,  asks  them 
whether  they  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
since  they  believed.  It  reads:  "He  said 
unto  them,  have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
since  ye  believed  ?  And  they  said  unto  him, 
we  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  Now  this  is 
a  fair  illustration  of  the  difference  between 
my  teaching  and  my  opponent's.  I  meet 
a  community  of  persons  that  say  they  are 
believers,  and  I  ask  them,  have  ye  received 
the  confirmation  of  the  Spirit  or  the  Hoxy 


Spirit  since  ye  believed?  Or,  "Have  ye 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed?" 
Mr.  Braden  comes  along,  and  if  they  have 
had  water  baptism  it  is  all  right.  He  never 
thinks  of  such  a  thing  as  asking  them  if 
they  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
terms  "Holy  Spirit"  and  "Holy  Ghost" 
remember,  are  used  in  the  Bible  inter- 
changeably. So  also  with  these  is  "  Gift  ol 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  "  Born  of  the  Spirit." 
But  the  record  proceeds: 

And  he,  Paul,  said  unto  them, "  Unto  what 
then  were  ye  baptized?"  And  they  said 
"Unto  John's  Baptism."  Then  said  Paul, 
"John  verily  baptised  with  the  baptism  ol 
repentence,  saying  unto  the  people  that 
they  should  believe  on  him  which  should 
come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.71 
When  they  heard  this  they  were  baptised 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  when 
Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  th« 
Holy  Ghost  came  on  them ;  and  they  spake 
with  tongues  and  prophesied."  Now,  here 
are  more  miraculous  manifestations,  so  far 
as  the  record  shows,  than  was  witnessed 
upon  the  day  of  Pentecost.  On  the  day  of 
Pentecost  there  was  but  the  gift  of  tongues, 
so  far  as  miraculous  manifestations  are  con- 
cerned. But  here  are  both  tongues  and 
prophecies.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  poured 
out  bountifully,  and  the  brethren  filled  to 
overflowing.  -And  yet  he  pretends  to  say 
that  on  Pentecost  day  there  was  a  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  in  this  instance 
there  was  not.  But  the  record  holds  that 
there  was  a  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Now,  I  wish  him  to  clear  this  up,  and  show 
to  the  audience  the  difference  between  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  reception 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  between  the  reception 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  was  here  spoken  of  by 
the  Apostle  Paul  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  Pentecost  day ;  or  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  was  given  unto  those 
who  believed  at  Samaria,  Acts  8:  20,  and 
the  gift  of  the  Hoh  Spn'  ,s  bestowed  upon 
the  household  of  Cornelius,  Acts  11:  17. 
All  of  these  are  used  interchangeably  as  I 
have  before  stated,  and  the  phenomena  is 
the  same  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  as  I  might 
correctly  use  the  term  Holy  Ghost  in  each 
instance.  I  take  it  that  this  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  third 
chapter  of  John.  "Except  a  man  be  born 
of  the  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  the  birth 
of  the  Spirit  representing  certainly  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "He  cannot 
enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Now  will 
my  opponent  please  answer  to-morrow 
evening  the  question  of  what  that  birth  of 
the  Spirit  to  which  Jesus  referred  had  ref- 
erence, and  whom  it  affects.  Do  not  forget 
that.  And  do  not  answer  it  by  saying  "  I 
believe  so  and  so,"  as  you  have  pretended 
to  answer  the  questions  that  I  asked  you 
this  evening.  I  am  not  asking  you  for  what 
you  believe  about  it,  but  for  what  the  record 
teaches.  I  want  a  clear  exposition  of  the 
record.  Do  not  say  that  Kelley  believes  so 
and  so,  and  that  Braden  believes  so  and  so. 


236 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Eet  us  have  the  facts  bearing  upon  this 
issue  set  out  as  they  are  in  the  record.  But 
I  will  pursue  the  thread  of  my  argument 
upon  tne  practice  in  the  early  days  of  the 
church  of  the  ordinance  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands. 

When  the  apostle  had  laid  his  hands  on 
those  at  Ephesus,  they  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and 
prophesied.  This  is  in  the  record  that  he 
claims  is  the  only  genuine  and  correct  record 
to  show  how  the  church  was,  as  it  was  left 
by  the  apostles,  and  the  pattern  to  the 
church  now,  directing  what  we  should  do. 
Is  the  church  of  which  Mr.  Braden  is  a 
member  in  practice  and  teaching  with  the 
early  chursh,  if  it  disregards  these  things  ? 
(And  it  does.)  Now,  I  turn  back  and  refer 
you  to  the  record  as  contained  in  the  eighth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  where, 
after  Philip  had  been  down  to  Samaria  and 
had  preached  to  the  people,  and  they  had 
received  the  word,  as  it  is  recorded,  as 
follows : 

"But  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized  both  men  and 
women.  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also;  and  when 
he  was  baptized,  he  continued  with  Philip  and  wonder- 
ed, beholding  the  miracles  and  signs  which  were  done. 
Now,  when  the  apostles,  which  were  at  Jerusalem, 
heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God,  they 
sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John,  who,  when  they  were 
come  down,  prayed  for  them,  that  they  might  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost.  (For  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon  none 
of  them ;  only  they  were  bapti  ed  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.)  Then  laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and 
they  received  the  Holy  Ghost  And  when  Simon  saw 
that  through  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given,  he  offered  them  money." 

I  cite  this  for  two  purposes  ;  First  to  show 
that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
given  to  those,  who  were  obedient  and  were 
confirmed  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  after 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  in  this  instance  to  the 
people  of  Samaria  ;  and  they  were  evidently 
baptized  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  fully  and 
effectually,  as  were  tnose  of  Pentecost  day. 
Second,  to  show  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not 
given  through  the  medium  of  the  word,  aa 
Brad  en's  church  believes,  but  through  a 
different  means — shed  abroad  directly  by 
Jesus  Chsist.  As  confirmative  proof  of  my 
eositions,  I  also  cite  the  ninth  chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  17th  verse: 

"  And  Ananias  went  his  way  and  entered  into  the 
house;  and  putting  his  hands  on  him  said,  Brother 
Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee 
by  the  way  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me,  that  thou 
mightest  receive  thy  sight  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  ey_es  as  it 
had  been  scales,  and  be  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
arose  and  was  baptized." 

Here  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  practice.  A 
clear  case  showing  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
nor.  received  through  the  medium  of  the 
word,  but  through  the  ministration  of  an 
elder,  one  not  an  apostle. 

Now  he  says  that  none  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  except  they  had  the  apostles'  hands 
laid  upon  them.  But  he  is  mistaken;  here 
is  Ananias  who  lays  his  hands  upon  Saul 
of  Tarsus;  and  Saul  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
under  his  hands,  and  Ananias  was  not  an 
apostle.  What  excuse  have  you  now  to 
offer  to  this  audience  for  saying  that  this 
practice  ought  not  to  be  in  the  church;  that 


the  Holy  Ghost  is  given  through  the> 
medium  of  the  word  and  under  an  apostle's* 
hands  only  ?  Here  are  three  flat  contradic- 
tions to  your  order  in  one  case. 

Then  I  call  your  attention  again  to  the- 
household  of  Cornelius,  where  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them  which  heard  the  word," 
and  was  not  imparted  through  the  medium 
of  the  word  ? 

I  next  invite  your  attention  to  the  church 
record  as  given  by  the  best  historians  sub- 
sequent to  that  time,  to  show  that  this  was 
not  only  the  order  during  the  New  Testa- 
ment times,  but  that  it  continued  to  be  the 
order  for  a  long  time  subsequent,  and  that 
they  actually  received  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
conforming  to  the  ordinances  as  they  were- 
placed  in  the  church,  and  not  simply 
through  the  medium  of  the  word. 

The  following  are  the  authorities  showing 
the  order  of  doctrine  of  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  as  it  was  practiced  in  the  early 
church  upon  baptized  believers,  and  the 
manner  of  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  church  as  left  perfected  by  the  apostles, 
if  ever  perfected. 

First.  Tertulliau,  A.  D.  200.  de  Bapt.  c.6. 

"After  baptism  the  hand  is  imposed  by 
blessing,  and  calling,  and  inviting  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  willingly  descends  from 
the  Father  on  the  bodies  that  are  cleansed 
and  blessed." 

Further  upon  this  in  chapter  8  he  says  : 

"  It  is  the  fleshly,  or  outward  act  of  bap- 
tism that  we  are  dipt  in  water  ;  the  spirit- 
ual effects  that  we  are  freed  from  our  sins. 
Tiien  follows  laying  on  of  hands,  the  Dis- 
penser, inviting  the  Spirit  of  God  by  prayer, 
And  being  cleansed  by  baptismal  water 
we  are  disposed  for  the  Holy  Spirit  under 
the  hands  of  the  Angel  of  the  church." 

Speaking  concerning  the  order  and  state 
of  the  church  at  this  early  time,  after  the 
death  of  the  apostles,  he  says,  (de  Script. 
Cap.  36) : 

"She  belieyeth  in  God,  she  signs  with 
water,  (that  is  baptizeth,)  she  clothes  with 
the  spirit,  (viz.,  by  the  Imposition  of 
hands,)  she  feeds  with  the  Eucharist,  (ad- 
ministers the  emblems  of  the  Lord's  body,) 
and  exhorts  to  martyrdom,  (to  faithfulness, 
and  the  keeping  of  the  law  of  God  even  unto 
death,)  and  against  this  order  or  Institution 
she  receives  no  man." 

This  is  the  declared  practice  of  the  church 
as  it  was  left  by  the  apostles.  I  call  my 
opponent's  attention  to  it  particularly,  and 
ask  him  to  explain  how  it  is,  that  it  is  not 
the  order  in  his  church  too,  since  he  affirms 
his  "is  in  accordance  with  the  church  of 
Christ  as  it  was  left  perfected  by  the  apos- 
tles." I  have  shown  you  that  under  the 
immediate  supervision  of  the  apostles  that 
this  was  the  order  and  practice,  and  now 
that  it  was  still  the  order  in  the  century 
which  immediately  followed.  And  I  want 
some  evidence  that  will  support  your  bold 
assertions  to  the  effect  that  your  church, — 
call  it  Christian,  Church  of  Christ,  Cainp- 
bellite,  Disciple,  or  what  you  may,  it  mat- 
ters not,  is  either  in  faith,  doctrine  or  prac- 
tices, in  accord  with  the  church  as  it  was 


THE  BE  ADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


237 


under  the  apostles,  or  in  the  immediate 
time  subsequent. 

Second,  But  I  have  other  evidence  to 
offer  from  the  history  of  the  early  church. 
Eusebius,  (not  the  Pope  of  that  name,)  but 
Eusebius  Pamphilus,  who  lived  about 
three  hundred  years  after  Christ,  in  his 
work  (Book  7,  c.  2).  certifies  that: 

"The  ancient  manner  of  receiving  mem- 
bers into  the  church  was  with  prayer,  and 
the  laying  on  of  hands." 

Again  he  says,  ( Book  6,  c.  26) : 

"  That  one  Novatius  being  sick  was  bap- 
tized, if  it  may  be  called  a  baptism  which 
he  received,  for  he  obtained  not  after  his 
recovery  that  which  he  should  have  done 
by  the 'canon  of  the  church,  to-wit,  con- 
firmation by  the  hands  of  the  Bishop,  which 
having  not  obtained,  how  can  he  be  sup- 
posed to  have  received  the  Holy  Spirit." 

This  was  about  the  year  260.  And  it 
must  not  either  be  supposed  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  practice  afterwards  of 
Crossing, or  Chrysni,  for  the  writer  makes  no 
mention  of  these  in  his  work. 

Third,  Cynrian,  in  A.  D.  250,  and  against 
whom  none  will  bring  an  accusation,  in  his 
73d  letter,  when  referring  to  the  fact  of  the 
apostles  going  to  Samaria  to  confirm  those 
that  Phillip  had  baptized,  says  : 

"  Which  custom  is  also  descended  to  us, 
that  they  who  are  baptized,  might  be 
brought  by  the  rules  of  the  church,  and  by 

S'ayer  of  in  position  of  hands  to  obtain  the 
oly  Ghost." 

Again  in  Ep.  72: — 

"It  is  of  no  purpose  to  lay  hands  on  them 
to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  unless  they  re- 
ceive the  baptism  of  the  church." 

Fourth,  Hierom  in  answering  this  ques- 
tion, viz: — "Why  he  that  is  baptized  in  the 
church  doth  not  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  but 
by  the  imposition  of  hands?"  answers 
(Dial  ad  Lucifer)  : 

"This  observation  for  the  honor  of  the 
priesthood,  did  descend  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. IfyouasKme  where  it  is  written  ? 
'Tis  answered,  in  Aetibus  Apostolorum,  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles." 

Fifth,  The  testimony  of  Chrysosfom,  who 
wrote  during  the  fourth  century.  He  says: 

"That  confirmation  gives  us  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

Sixth,  Augustine,  of  the  same  century, 
writes : 

"  Still  we  do  what  the  Apostles  did,  when 
they  laid  their  hands  on  the  Samaritans 
and  called  down  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
them." 

With  these  I  might  also  cite  Mosheim's 
Church  History,  Vol.  1,  page  91  ;  and 
Gahiin's  Church  History,  page  93. 

These  give  you  an  unmistakable  history 
of  the  church  upon  the  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit^  and 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  down  to  the  fourth 
century  from  the  time  of  Christ.  These 
historians  are  some  of  the  same  parties 
through  whom  we  received  the  record  of 
the  Scriptures  themselves. 

The  practices  and  teachings  of  the  church 
by  the  apostles  as  I  have  shown,  were 


not  only  different  from  Braden's  church, 
but  also  that  of  the  church  after  the 
apostles,  whether  perfected  or  not.  What 
has  he  to  answer,  I  again  ask  him,  to  thia 
emphatic  testimony? 

I  cite  these  to  show  you  that  after  the 
apostles'  time  the  churches  that  were  left, 
(these  congregations  that  have  been  referred 
to),  practiced  the  same  things  that  we  have 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures, 
and  that  this  is  the  highest  and  most  cor- 
rect history  and  account  that  we  have  with 
regard  to  the  practices  of  the  church  after 
the  time  of  the  apostles.  This  is  the  his- 
tory as  handed  down  of  the  doings  of  those 
chnrches  after  the  apostles'  time. 

Now  I  hurriedly  invif.e  your  attention  to 
a  description  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as 
set  forth  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Hebrews, 
and  call  the  attention  of  my  opponent  to 
the  fact  that  in  describing  the  faith  of  his 
church  this  evening,  he  left  out  one  of  the 
first  or  foundation  principles  here  named  by 
the  apostle  Paul,  and  not  only  by  Paul,  but 
by  others  of  the  apostles;  and  as  I  have 
shown,  was  held  to  be  the  practice  and  doc- 
trine of  the  church  as  handed  down  after- 
wards until  the  fourth  century,  at  least  af- 
ter the  apostles'  time. 
The  apostle  says  : — 

"  Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfec- 
tion, not  laying  again  the  foundation  of  re- 
pentance from  dead  works,  and  of  faith  to- 
ward God  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and 
of  laying  on  of  hands." 

Now,  you  did  not  enumerate  this  last  as 
one  of  the  doctrines  of  your  church,  and 
one  of  the  things  you  believe  in.  Do  you 
believe  in  it  for  any  purpose,  and  practice 
it  for  any  purpose,  in  your  church,  either 
for  the  ordination  of  the  minister  setting 
apart  of  the  minister,  or  anything  else? 
Do  you  for  anything?  You  may  answer 
these  questions  to-morrow  night.  The 
record  continues : 

"And  of  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  of 
eternal  judgment.  And  this  will  we  do  if 
God  permit." 

Remember  these  are  principles  in  the 
foundation  of  the  structure.  Do  you  accept 
all  as  being  in  the  foundation  of  your  struc- 
ture? If  you  do  not,  then  answer  the  fur- 
ther question,  and  show  your  authority  in 
the  scriptures  here,  something  upon  which 
we  may  safely  rely,  for  your  people  taking 
that  out  of  the  New  Testament  so  far  as 
your  practicing  it  is  concerned.  Just  give 
us  one  passage  of  scripture  to-morrow  even- 
ing showing  that  that  passage  is  not  as  the 
apostle  used  it,  one  of  tne  first,  fundamental, 
foundation  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  and  that  .it  should  be  taken  out  of 
the  New  Testament.  Not  only  that,  bub 
to-morrow  evening  will  you  please  answer 
this  question,  for  I  wish  time  enough  to  ex- 
amine your  answer :  Where  and  how  da 
you  receive  authority  to  teach  and  admin- 
ister the  ordinances  as  established  by  Christ 
for  these,  as  you  say,  congregations  which 
jwere  left  after  the  apostles'  time?  Second* 
who  were  left  over  these  congregations,  and 


238 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


from  whence  did  they  receive  their  author- 
ity ?  Third,  and  when  Mr.  Campbell  organ- 
ized his  church  in  this  century,  where  did 
he  get  his  authority  to  organize,  if 'the  au- 
thority is  vested  in  the  congregation  ?  And 
fourth,  had  he  any  more  authority  to  or- 
ganize a  church  at  the  time  that  he  did  than 
I  have  to  organize  a  church,  or  you  have  to 
organize  a  church  ?  Please  answer  all  these 
questions  to-morrow  evening. 

I  shall  call  your  attention  in  this  connec- 
tion to  the  claims  made  by  him  with  refer- 
ence to  the  continuance  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  manifested  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  spoken  of  by  Peter  as  belonging  by 
promise  not  only  to  that  people  but  "  to  all 
that  were  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call."  Was  this  indeed  a 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel?  1  will 
read  it  carefully,  because  I  wish  you  to  un- 
derstand and  comprehend  the  full  instruc- 
tion given.  Acts  2: 38: 

"Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you  in  th«  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  re- 
in ission  of  sins  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  for  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children, 
and  unto  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  Hod  shall  call.  And  with  many  other  words  did 
he  testify  and  exhort,  saying.  Save  yourselves  from 
tiiis  untoward  generation." 

The  promise  he  says  of  this  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  "  unto  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, and  unto  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
Called  to  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles' 
hands,  or  called  to  miraculous  power? 
Could  the  apostle  -Peter  have  had  in  his 
mind  at  the  time  that  the  promise  "  to  you 
and  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call,"  was  only  to  those  that  the  apostles 
could  lay  their  hands  upon?  Was  the  call 
to  stop  with  those?  Jesus  had  ordained  a 
certain  Seventy  before  this  time,  as  you  will 
find  by  turning  and  reading  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Luke. 

"  After  these  things  the  Lord  appointed 
other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them  two  and 
two  before  his  faoe  into  every  city." 

Seventy  elders,  besides  the  apostles,  cer- 
tainly, and  i  he  reading  is  such  that  it  is 
claimed  to  show  LVO  {Seventies,  making  140 
that  we  know  of  that  were  in  existence  at 
that  time,  and  recognized  by  Christ  besides 
the  apostles  ;  and  these  went  out  preaching. 
and  there  were  many  of  them  preaching  and 
teaching  as  is  shown  by  reference  to  other 
passages  in  scripture.  Did  the  promise 
made  by  Peter  extend  to  those  who  should 
accept  the  faith  under  these  others,  or  did 
they  only  follow  the  eleven  apostles  whom 
Jesus  .  met  after  his  resurrection  ?  Peter 
says,  verses  32  and  33:  "This  Jesus  hath 
God  raised  up,  whereof  weallare witnesses. 
Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father 
the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath 
shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 
This  is  connected  with  the  sixteenth  verse 
of  the  same  chapter,  where  he  refers  to  the 
prophecy  of  Joel.  "For  these  are  not 
drunken  as  ye  suppose,  seeing  it  is  but  the 
third  hour  of  the  day.  But  this  is  that  "— 


now  what  do  "  this"  and  "that"  refer  to? 
The  word  "  this  "  all  must  agree  refers  to 
the  thing  poured  out  upon  that  occasion — 
the  Spirit.  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is, 
For  this  that  you  see,  that  which  seems  to 
make  this  audience  stagger,  or  act  different- 
ly from  what  they  would  act  at  other  times, 
is  not  strong  drink,  "  seeing  it  is  but  the 
third  hour  of  the  day."  "  But  this  [Spirit] 
is  that  [Spirit]  which  was  spoken  of  by  the 
prophet  Joel;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  in 
the  last  days,  saith  God,  'I  will  pour  out  of 
my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and  your  sons  and 
your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  and  your 
young  men  shall  see  visions,  and  your  old 
men  shall  dream  dreams'." 

Now  let  me  examine  it  as  Braden  wishes 
you  to  take  it.  This  is  the  fulfillment  of  the 
prophecy  made  by  Joel.  Can't  you  see  that 
that  is  a  different  thing  entirely  from  a 
mere  reference  to  that  Spirit  that  Joel  said 
would  be  poured  out  in  the  last  days?  The 
true  antecedent  or  substantive  is  Spirit,  and 
not  the  "  fulfillment  of  Joel's  prophecy." 
Hence  he  says  :  This  is  that  [Spirit]  which 
was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Joel,  "and  it 
shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith 
God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh."  This  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  then. 
Peter  is  giving  them  to  understand  upon 
that  day  that  it  is  the  Spirit  of  God  that 
is  made  manifest  before  their  eyes,  and  not 
a  fulfillment  of  Joel's  prophecy,  because  he 
could  not  have  truthfully  made  them  believe 
it  was  a  fulfillment  of  Joel's  prophecy,  for 
Joel's  prophecy  included  seeing  visions  and 
dreaming  dreams.  Was  thereany  body  there 
that  fell  asleep  and  had  a  dream  that  you 
have  any  account  of?  Was  there  anything 
poured  out  there  "On  my  servants  and  on 
my  handmaidens?"  etc.  Was  it  poured 
out  upon  all  flesh  there?  It  is  not  only  to 
be  poured  out  upon  certain  persons  w'heu 
the  prophecy  is  fulfilled,  but  upon  all  flesh. 
Then  is  the  time  when  the  lamb  and  the 
lion  shall  lie  down  together,  when  all  shall 
be  at  peace,  and  when  the  earth  shall  be 
full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the 
waters  fill,  or  cover,  the  sea.  I  know  that 
Mr.  Braden  thinks  it  will  be  when  the  lamb 
is  inside  of  the  lion  that  they  will  lie  down 
together,  but  that  is  not  according  to  the 
prophecy.  The  prophets  declare  that  they 
shall  lie  down  together  at  a  time  when  they 
should  not  molest  each  other,  and  a  little 
child  even  should  lead  them,  etc.,  and  we 
ought  to  believe  fully  in  the  predictions  and 
in  the  prophecies  being  actually  fulfilled  at 
some  time,  for  these  prophets  spoke  as 
they  were  moved  upon  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Here  I  shall  take  up  his  idea  of  the  Spirit 
being  received  only  through  the  word,  and 
cite  passages  of  scripture  to  show  that  the 
Spirit  is  not  given  through  the  word,  the 
letter  of  the  law,  as  the  Campbellites  hold. 
1  Peter  1 :  10—12: 

"  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets  have  Inquired  and 
searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  (hat 
should  come  unto  you.  Searching  what,  or  what 
manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them 
did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  suffering" 
of  Christ,  and  the  glory  ttmt  should  follow.  UnU» 
whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto  themselves,  bu« 
unto  us,  they  did  minister  the  things  whicb  are  no«« 


THE  BRA  BEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


239 


reported  unto  yon  by  them  that  hare  preached  the 
Gospel  unto  you  with  the  H"ly  Ghost  sent  down  from 
heaven,  which  things  the  angels  desire  to  look  into." 

Now  the  persons  who  before  this  time 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  "sent  down 
from  heaven,"  the  apostle  Peter  says  re- 
ceived it,  not  as  it  came  through  the  word, 
the  dead  letter,  but  direct  from  heaven. 
There  is  no  such  thing  in  the  Scripture, 
either  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  for 
the  purpose  of  perfecting  the  word.  The 
word,  as  I  understand,  was  perfected  as  it 
emanated  from  God.  It  was  perfect  then. 
Do  you  think  Jesus  gave  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
order  to  make  the  word  more  perfect?  So 
far  as  that  is  concerned,  it  was  perfect  in 
the  Psalmist's  day.  "The  law  of  the  Lord 
is  perfect,  converting  the  soul."  Was  it 
perfect  in  the  sense  that  my  opponent  would 
have  you  believe  now,  so  far  as  to  include 
all  that  God  should  ever  give?  Not  at  all. 
This  is  only  a  false  theory  among  the  peo- 

Kle.  James  speaks  of  the  "perfect  law  of 
berty."  That  perfect  law  of  liberty  that 
he  was  speaking  of  was  the  law  that  they 
had  then,  and  that  they  were  commanded 
to  teach,  and  they  had  all  the  law  that  was 
in  a  sense  requisite  to  salvation,  from  the 
time  when  the  great  commission  was  given 
by  Jesus,  when  he  said,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture." Mark  16.  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you."  Did  he  tell  them  to  teach  anything 
else  than  what  he  had  commanded?  Yet, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  were 
instructed  to  teach  just  what  Jesus  had 
commanded  them,  afterwards  they  received 
word  upon  word,  line  upon  line,  and  pre- 
cept upon  precept,  and  we  have  this  in  part 
here  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  com- 
prises the  greater  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment all  received,  so  Braden  would  have  us 
believe,  after  they  had  enough — close  the 
portals — we  have  got  a  Bible;  we  don't 
want  any  more  Bible.  But  the  men  inspired 
of  God  never  thought  of  such  a  thing,  yet 
they  were  commanded  to  teach  just  what 
Jesus  had  commanded.  If  he  says  now  the 
word  is  perfected,  I  say  it  was  just  as  per- 
fect at  the  time  that  Jesus  taught  the  eleven 
disciples  upon  this  occasion,  and  raised  up 
his  hands  and  blessed  them.  The  perfec- 
tion of  the  word  does  not  consist  in  the 
amount  of  the  word,  but  it  consists  in  the 
fact  that  the  word  emanated  from  God. 
Because;if  you  say  it  consisted  in  the  amount, 
there  are  several  of  these  writings  in  the 
Bible  made  after  the  time  that  Jesus  speaks 
of  "the  perfect  law  of  liberty."  And  Jude 
says,  "(Jon  tend  for  the  faith  that  was  once 
dtlwered  to  the  saints." 

Do  you  say  it  was  this  faith  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  he  exhorted  them  to  contend 
for?  The  faith  that  is  contained  in  the 
New  Testament  is  a  system  of  religion,  and 
was  not  compiled  in  Jude's  time.  Do  you 
aay  that  it  meant  the  powerful  faith,  'the 


active  faith,  the  principle  by  which  men 
and  women  cou!d  do  wonderful  things  by 
the  Spirit'of  God  that  he  exhorted  them  to 
contend  for?  If  so,  why  do  you  not  contend 
for  it?  Just  answer  these  questions,  arid 
answer  them  one  way  or  the  other,  so  we 
may  know  your  position.  The  apostle  Jude 
wrote  in  the  year  66.  Many  of  the  Epistles 
found  in  the  New  Testament,  were  written 
after  his  time.  Yet  he  exhorted  them  to 
contend  for  the  faith  "once  delivered," 
already  done,  not  that  which  is  to  be  de- 
livered to  the  Saints. 

But  let  us  examine  more  particularly  the 
position  taken  that  these  epistles  and  reve- 
lations were  given  for  the  purpose  of  perfect- 
ing the  word  of  God.  It  occurs  to  me  that 
there  are  no  grounds  for  this,  and  that  it  is 
but  a  false  assumption  on  the  part  of  my  op- 
ponent. He  assumes  that  the  apostles  were 
placed  in  the  church  for  the  purpose  of 
perfecting  the  word  of  God.  Now,  I  open 
the  Bible  to  ascertain  whether  this  wt*s  for 
the  purpose  of  perfecting  the  word  of  God 
or  not,  and  turn  to  the  fourth  chapter  of 
Ephesians  and  read  as  follows  : 

"And  he  gave  some,  apostles  ;  and  some, 
prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some, 
pastors  and  teachers."  For  the  perfecting 
of  the  word  of  God:  Did  you  read  it  that 
way,  Mr.  Braden  ?  The  Bible  reads,  verse 
12,  "For  the  perfecting  of  the  Saints."  And 
yet  he  had  it  for  the  perfecting  of  the  word 
of  God.  Again,  "for  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try"— doing  the  preaching  and  administer- 
ing under  the  word,  and  yet  he  has  it  for 
the  perfecting  of  the  word. 

Again,  "For  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ."  No,  Braden  says,  to  edify  the 
word.  And  now  let  me  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  when  he  said,  "How  shall 
they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard?"  He  did  not  quote  the  full  text, 
which  also  says :  "And  how  shall  they 
hear  without  a  preacher?  and  how  shall 
they  preach  except  they  be  sent?"  Why 
did  you  not  quote  the  entire  verse  there? 
"How  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  have  not  heard?"  Very  true;  but 
what  is  the  balance?  See  tenth  chapter  of 
Romans:  "And  how  shall  they  hear  with- 
out a  preacher?  And  how  shall  they 
E reach  except  they  be  sent?  as  it  is  written, 
ow  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them  that 
preach  the  gospel  of  peace  and  bring  glad 
tidings  of  good  things."  O,  the  true  mes- 
senger from  God  brings  something  of  value 
then.  He  does  not  only  relate  history,  but 
he  brings  to  the  craving  heart  the  like  rest 
and  peace  of  which  he  reads.  God  has 
something  to  do  with  such  a  preacher  of  his 
word,  and  hence  the  calling  of  men  in  order 
to  do  this  preaching,  to  dispense  this  word 
to  the  people.  They  cannot  believe  except 
they  shall  hear.  So  this  is  the  idea  for  the 
giving  of  the  apostles,  and  prophets,  and 
elders,  and  teachers,  etc.,  and  not  that  these 
apostles  and  preachers  were  given  for  the 
purpose  of  perfecting  the  word  of  God  as 
Braden  interprets  it.  In  contradistinction 
the  apostle  says  they  were  given  for  the 
perfecting  of  the  Saints,  (those  who  believ- 


240 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ed  in  Jesus  Christ  and  had  undertaken  to 
become  his  children  and  walk  in  his  ways,) 
"for  the  work  of  his  ministry,  for  the  edi- 
fying of  the  body  of  Christ."  They  were 
there  for  the  purpose  of  exhorting  them, 
instructing  them,  and  to  this  end  they 
received  knowledge  from  time  to  time, 
so  as  to  be  able  to  rightly  divide  the  wora 
and  build  up  the  church  ;  and  thus  their 
work  was  in  perfecting  the  church,  instead 
of  perfecting  the  word.  Braden's  church 
has  not  only  changed  the  officers  and  prac- 
tices of  the  church,  but  actually  changed 
the  object  and  effect  of  the  work  done,  and 
of  those  who  did  it.  And  yet  he  pretends 
to  affirm  that  his  church  is  in  accordance 
with  the  New  Testament  pattern  in  faith, 
doctrine  and  practices,  organization,  etc. 
Wherein  is  it  similiar?  Will  he  please  tell 
us  so  that  we  can  discover  any  similarity 
whatever,  in  fact,  aside  from  the  represen- 
tation that  Paul  makes  to  Timothy  that  at 


sometime  there  should  a  people  arise  claim- 
ing to  be  the  Church  of  Christ,  "Having  a 
form  of  Godliness,  but  denying  the  power 
thereof ;"  but  of  this  class  the  apostle  says, 
"from  such  turnaway."  The  apostle  seems 
to  clearly  foresee  that  somebody  would  try 
to  take  one  of  the  foundation  principles  out 
of  the  structure,  and  discard  the  means  or- 
dained, for  giving  access  to  the  power,  and 
he  warns  Timothy  to  be  careful : — 

"Take  heed  unto  yourself,  and  unto  the 
doctrine;  continue  in  them:  For  in  doing 
this  thou  shalt  both  save  thyself  and  them 
that  hear  thee."  He  could  not  dispense 
with  one,  two,  three,  or  all  the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  except  baptism  in 
water,  and  be  justified.  But  was  to  "observe 
these  things  without  preferring  one  before 
another,  doing  nothing  by  partiality." 
1  Tim.  4:  16,  and5:21. 

(Time  called.) 


MR    BRADEN'S  THIRD   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MOPERA  TORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — Last  night  I  gave  you  a  de- 
tailed account  of  the  faith,  organization, 
teaching,  ordinances,  worship  and  practice, 
of  the  church  of  which  I  am  a  member.  I 
compared  these  features  with  the  church  of 
Christ,  as  organized  and  completed  by  the 
apostles,  and  established  perfect  ident'ty. 
There  were  open  to  my  opponent  three 
lines  of  criticism.  I.  I  did  not  describe  my 
church  accurately.  He  has  not  urged  this 
objection  and  has  conceded  the  accuracy 
of  my  description.  II.  There  were  features 
In  my  church  that  were  not  in  the  apostolic 
church.  He  has  conceded  that  the  apos- 
tolic church  had  all  of  the  features  of  my 
church.  Mormons  usually  tell  us,  "You 
Campbellites  are  all  right  as  far  as  you  go ; 
but  you  don't  go  far  enough."  III.  There 
were  features,  elements,  in  the  apostolic 
church  that  are  not  in  my  church.  This  is 
the  criticism  that  he  has  made.  On  this 
alone  do  we  differ.  He  has  conceded 
that  we  are  right  in  our  teaching  in  re- 
gard to  the  one  God — in  regard  to  the  one 
Lord.  His  first  attack  is  on  our  teaching  in 
regard  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
We  are  agreed  that  there  is  a  divine  person, 
the  Holy  Spirit.  That  he  has  exerted  two 
influences  on  men,  direct  in  inspiration  and 
mediate  through  the  medium  of  the  truth 
he  has  revealed.  We  are  agreed  that  the 
direct  influence  was  exerted  in  inspiration, 
miracles,  evolation.  We  both  believe  that 
this  influence  was  exerted  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  men  that  the  Bible  says  were  in- 


spired, from  the  days  of  Adam  until  the 
days  of  the  apostles.  We  both  believe  what 
the  Bible  teaches  in  regard  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  men  during  that  period,  and  that 
they  wrought  miracles,  g^ave  revelations, 
acted,  spake  and  wrote  by  inspiration.  We 
are  both  agreed  that  this  influence  was  not 
exerted  in  conviction,  conversion,  sanctifl- 
cation  and  comforting.  We  are  agreed  that 
it  was  to  reveal  truth,  attest  such  revela- 
tions, do  benevolent  work  in  miracles  of 
mercy,  and  to  aid  man  in  emergencies  in 
which  human  wisdom  was  not  adequate. 
We  are  agreed  that  in  the  conviction  and 
conversion  of  the  sinner,  and  in  the  sancti- 
fi cation  and  upbuilding  of  the  saint,  t-he 
Holy  Spirit  accomplished  his  work  through 
the  truth  revealed  in  his  word,  or  preached 
in  accordance  with  it.  My  opponent  claims 
that  it  is  a  part  of  the  permanent  constitu- 
tion of  the  church,  that  believers  should 
enjoy  the  direct  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  it  was  enjoyed  in  the  apostolic  churches. 
That  this  direct  influence  will  constitute 
persons,  apostles,  prophets,  etc..  in  the 
church  now,  and  thus  the  church  should  en- 
joy all  the  powers  and  possess  all  of  the 
works  that  the  apostolic  church  possessed, 
inspiration,  prophesying,  speaking  with 
tongues,  working  signs,  revelations. 

There  is  no  difference  between  my  oppo- 
nent and  myself  as  to  whether  these  spirit- 
ual powers  were  in  the  Apostolic  Church. 
The  sole  issue  is  this,  "  Does  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church  the  New  Testament 
ordain  that  they  are  to  remain  in  the 


THE  BRADEN  AND  TELLEY  DEBATE. 


241 


Church?  Does  it  make  them  a  permaneni 
constituent  element  as  it  constitutes  aud 
organises  the  permanent  organization  of 
the  Church?"  My  opponent  need  not  read 
to  me  Joel's  promise.  I  believe  that.  We 
differ  as  to  its  extent  and  time  of  con- 
tinuance. Nor  the  promises  of  John  and 
Jesus  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I 
believe  that.  We  differ  as  to  its  extent  and 
continuance.  Nor  the  promise  of  Jesus  that 
his  apostles  should  receive  the  Comforter. 
I  believe  that.  We  differ  as  to  its  extent 
and  continuance  Nor  the  promise  that 
his  apostles,  when  before  magistrates, 
should  be  inspired,  nor  that  those  who  be- 
lieved on  Him  should  have  inspiration, 
like  rivers  of  water.  I  believe  that.  We 
differ  concerning  thd  extent  and  con- 
tinuance. Nor  His  promise  to  His  apostles 
that  they  should  be  endued  with  power 
from  on  high,  and  that  signs  should  follow 
their  teaching.  I  believe  that,  but  differ  as 
to  its  extent  and  continuance.  Nor  Peter's 
promise  on  days  of  Pentecost.  We  differ  as 
to  its  extent  and  continuance.  He  need  not 
read  accounts  of  the  baptism  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.  I  believe  that.  We  differ  as  to  ita 
extent  and  continuance.  He  need  not  read 
to  me  accounts  of  the  apostles  conferring 
the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  of  the  apostles  working 
miracles,  nor  of  persons  working  miracles 
who  possessed  spiritual  gifts.  I  believe  all 
that.  We  differ  as  to  its  extent  and  con- 
tinuance. Heneednotreadtomel  Cor.  XII 
xiii.  xiv.  and  Eph.  iv.,  and  other  passa- 
ges. I  believe  all  that.  We  differ  only 
Concerning  extent  and  continuance  of  such 

S'fts.  He  assumes  that  the  baptism  in  the 
oly  Spirit  was  a  general  gift  in  the  Church. 
I  assert  that  there  were  only  two  occur- 
rences of  it.  He  asserts  that  it  was  to  re- 
main as  a  constituent  element  in  the  church. 
I  assert  that  it  ceased  with  the  two  sole 
occasions  of  such  baptism.  He  asserts  that 
the  promises  of  our  Saviour  of  the  Comforter 
were  to  all  Christians.  I  assert  they  were 
to  the  apostles  alone.  He  asserts  that  the 
promise  of  signs  in  Mark  xvi.  was  to  all 
believers  I  assert  it  was  to  the  apostles  who 
believed.  He  asserts  that  Peter's  promise 
was  to  all  believers.  I  assert  that  it  was 
,011  ly  those  whom  God  called  in  his  appointed 
"way,  the  imposition  of  an  apostle's  hands. 
He  asserts  that  others  than  those  on  whom 
an  apostle  had  laid  his  hands  possessed 
these  spiritual  gifts.  I  assert  that  only 
such  possessed  them.  He  asserts  that  the 
persons  possessing  these  powers  as  des- 
cribed in  1  Cor.  xii.  xiii.  xiv.  and  Ephesians 
iv.  were,  by  the  constitution  of  the  Church, 
placed  in  the  Church  as  permanent  offices, 
a  permanent  element  in  the  Church.  I 
assert  that  they  were  provisional,  the 
constitution  making  power  of  the  Church, 
and  ceased  when  the  constitution,  the  New 
Testament,  was  completed,  and  the  Church 
was  organized  under  it ;  and  that  the  con- 
stitution did  not  ordain  them  as  a  perma- 
nent constituent  element  of  the  Church, 
organized  in  accordance  with  the  completed 
constitution.  That  the  constitution  ordains 
that  the  Church  is  to  be  governed  by  the 


perfect  word  of  God  in  the  New  Testament, 
aud  that  we  need  no  new  revelations.  That 
it  ordains  that  evangelists,  pastors,  teachers, 
officers,  servants,  without  direct  influence 
of  the  Spirit  or  constitution  making  power, 
shall  rule  the  Church,  in  accordance  with 
the  perfect  law  of  God,  completed  in  the 
New  Testamen  t.  The  issue  then  is  whether 
miraculous  powers,  such  as  existed  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  such  as  are  described 
in  1  Cor.,  Eph.  and  other  epistles  shall  be  a 
permanent  constituent  element  of  the 
Church  ?  Or  were  they  merely  provisional, 
constitution  making  powers  that  ceased 
when  the  constitution  was  completed  and 
the  Church  was  organized  under  it  and 
were  not  part  of  the  Church. 

We  will  now  review  my  opponent's  talk 
and  answer  his  questions.  In  I  Cor.  xii, 
the  apostle  explains  to  the  Corinthians  the 
spiritual  gifts  in  the  church.  He  says,  "de- 
sire earnestly  the  best  spiritual  gifts,  never- 
theless I  show  unto  you  a  more  excellent 
way"  than  the  exercise  of  the  spiritual 
gifts.  He  then  explains  what  that  more 
excellent  way  is.  It  is  the  condition  of  the 
church,  after  spiritual  gifts  have  ceased, 
and  the  church  is  under  the  perfect  word  of 
God.  He  then  closes  by  telling  them  to 
desire  spiritual  gifts  as  long  as  they  are  to 
remain  in  the  church.  It  is  not,  however, 
the  most  excellent  way,  but  the  way  he  had 
discussed  in  the  eleventh  chapter.  Moses 
gave  laws  to  the  Israelites  when  in  the  wil- 
derness suited  to  their  condition.  He  tells 
them  what  will  be  their  condition  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  often  returns  to  their 
present  condition  and  tells  them  how  they 
are  to  conduct  themselves  until  they  reach 
the  land  of  promise.  So  Paul  tells  the  Cor- 
inthians how  to  act  under  spiritual  gifts; 
then  describes  a  more  excellent  way  than 
the  best  of  these  gifts,  when  they  shall 
cease ;  then  he  returns  to  his  first  thought, 
and  tells  them  how  to  exercise  the  gifts  till 
that  more  excellent  way  obtains.  He  no 
more  describes  the  permanent  of  the  church 
than  Moses  describes  the  permanent  of  the 
Israelites  in  similar  language. 

My  opponent  says  I  would  not  ask  con- 
verts "nave  ye  received  the  Holy  Spirit 
after  ye  believed."  No, I  wouldnot.  Iwould 
know  that  the  indwelling  of  the  spirit  they 
had  received,  and  that  the  miraculous  power 
of  the  spirit,  such  as  Paul  inquired  about, 
they  could  not  receive,  for  the  Bible  so 
teaches.  The  baptism  of  the  spirit  is  one 
thing,  the  gifts  imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  another.  To  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
baptism  from  Christ  is  one  thing,  to  receive 
him  in  spiritual  gifts  by  an  apostle's  hands 
is  another.  Those  baptized  at  Samaria  had 
received  the  indwelling  of  the  spirit.  The 
miraculous  influence  of  the  spirit  could  only 
be  imparted  by  the  imposition  of  an  apos- 
tle's hands.  Will  my  opponent  tell  me? 
Had  these  Samaritans  been  born  of  water 
and  spirit  before  the  apostles  laid  hands  on 
them?  Were  they  saints  or  sinners?  If 
sinners,  how  could  they  receive  the  spirit? 
Jesus  says  the  world  cannot  receive  him. 
The  Holy.  Spirit  in  miraculous  power  was 


242 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


not  through  the  word.  It  was  by  imposition 
of  apostles'  hands.  But  the  indwelling  was 
through  faith,  belief  of  the  word.  "  After 
ye  believed,  because  ye  were  sons,  God  has 
given  you  his  spirit."  Ananias  was  a  spe- 
cial apostle,  just  as  persons  sometimes 
offered  sacrifices  who  were  not  priests  when 
a  priest  was  not  present.  So  Ananias  was 
a  special  apostle  sent  by  God  to  impart  the 
spirit  to  Saul. 

He  challenged  me  to  explain  the  birth  of 
the  water  and  the  spirit.  I  will  cheerfully 
do  so.  The  Greek  has  one  word,  gennaoo, 
that  is  used  of  both  male  and  female.  When 
used  of  the  male  it  means  "  beget ;"  when 
used  of  the  female  it  means  "  to  bear,  to 
bring  forth."  When  James  says  "He  begat 
us  by  the  word  of  truth"  he  used  this  word. 
When  Paul  says  "I  begat  you  through  the 
gospel"  he  uses  it.  When'Peter  says  "  We 
are  begotten  through  the  truth"  he  uses  it. 
Then  God,  the  Spirit  and  Paul  begat  the 
believers  through  the  truth.  When  it  is 
asked  "Where  is  he  that  is  born  King  of 
the  Jews?"  it  is  this  word.  "Those  born 
of  woman  "  it  is  the  same  word.  In  a  birth 
there  are  two  parties,  the  father  who  be- 
gets. God  or  his  spirit  begets  through  the 
truth.  There  is  the  mother  of  whom  the 
person  is  born.  When  we  speak  of  both 
together  we  say  a  man  was  born  of  his 
mother  and  father,  or  born  of  his  mother  to 
his  father,  because  he  must  be  born  of  his 
mother  before  he  is  born  to  his  father.  The 
word  pneunia  occurs  in  the  Greek  New  Tes- 
tament 287  times.  It  is  translated  "spirit" 
in  every  case  except  one,  in  John  iii,  8, 
when  it  is  said  "  the  wind  bloweth  where  it 
listeth,  and  thou  nearest  the  sound  thereof, 
and  thou  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  nor 
whither  it  goeth ;  so  is  every  one  that  is 
born  of  the  spirit."  If  it  should  read  "The 
wind  bloweth,"  it  should  read  also  "be 
born  of  wind  "  in  the  same  sentence,  which 
is  absurd.  If  it  is  "born  of  spirit"  it 
should  read  the  "spirit  breathes."  There 
is  no  sense  in  giving  such  different  mean- 
ings to  the  same  word  in  the  same  sentence. 
Wind  in  every  other  case  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  translation  of  anemos. 

Our  Savior  told  Nicodemus  that  unless  a 
man  be  born  again  he  could  not  see  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Nicodemus  did  not  un- 
derstand, and  asked  him  to  explain  what 
he  meant.  Our  Savior  did  so.  He  did  not 
make  it  still  more  mysterious^  but  he  told 
Nicodemus  just  how  a  man  is  born  again. 
He  said,  "Except  a  man  is  born  of  water 
and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  King- 
dom of  God."  "It  is  not  the  natural  birth 
that  I  mean,"  he  explains  to  Nicodemus. 
He  then  tells  how  men  are  begotten  by  the 
Spirit.  "The  Spirit  breathes"  (in  inspira- 
tion) "where  he  pleases,  and  you  hear  his 
voice."  (The  words  he  inspires,  the  Word 
of  God.)  "You  cannot  tell  whence  he  comes 
or  whither  lie  goes.  In  this  way  (by  hear- 
ing the  word  of  God)  "is  every  one  (begot- 
ten) that  is  begotten  of  the  Spirit."  Then 
men  are  begotten  by  the  Spirit  through  the 
word,  and  born  of  the  water  and  Spirit  in 
baptism.  The  fact  that  in  twenty  cases  we 


cited  last  night,  belief  and  baptism  are  so 
coupled  together,  proves  that  this  is  correct. 

Hebrews  VI.  refers  to  the  Mosaic  law 
that  these  Hebrews  were  not  willing  to  lay 
to  one  side.  The  Mosaic  law  was  the  foun- 
dation of  the  gospel,  prepared  the  way  for 
it.  The  gospel  of  Christ  is  that  which  is 
perfect.  The  writer  exhorts  them  to  lay  to 
one  side  Mosaism  and  go  on  to  perfection 
in  the  gospel.  We  lay  hands  on  evangel- 
ists, overseers  and  servants  of  the  Church, 
to  induct  them  into  office,  and  not  to  impart 
spiritual  gifts.  He  wants  to  know  what 
offices  were  left  in  the  Church  ?  Evangel- 
ists, overseers,  servants,  who  acted  as  pas- 
tors, teachers.  Where  do  they  get  their 
authority?  From  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  the  New  Testament.  Where  did 
Campbell  get  his  authority  ?  From  the 
constitution  of  the  Church,  the  New  Testa- 
ment, just  where  those  who  went  preach- 
ing the  word  got  theirs  ;  just  where  Aquilh* 
and  Priscilla  got  theirs  when  they  taught 
Apollos  the  word  of  the  Lord  more  perfectly. 
He  wants  to  know  if  the  Seventy  did  not 
impart  spiritual  gifts.  The  Li  ble  does  not 
say  they  ever  did.  It  does  say  the  twelve 
did,  so  did  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  so  did  Ananias,  a  special  apostle. 
The  word  was  given  perfectly  to  the  disci- 
ples. They  gave  it  to  the  world  complete. 
First  spoken,  then  written.  Even  if  it  had 
not  been  all  written  when  Jude  wrote,  it 
had  been  spoken.  Then  it  was  reduced  to 
writing. 

We  will  now  teach  our  opponent  another 
Bible  lesson.  In  Gen.  xvii,  we  read  that 
circumcision  in  the  flesh  is  the  token  of  the 
inheritance,  the  land  of  promise,  to  all  who 
are  born  of  Israel's  seed  after  the  flesh.  I, 
Chron.  xvi,  15,  declares  that  the  land  of 
Canaan  was  the  inheritance  that  the  cove- 
nant gave  to  them.  Circumcision  in  the 
flesh  of  a  descendant  of  Israel  was  a  token 
that  he,  under  the  covenant,  was  entitled 
to  a  share  of  the  land,  the  inheritance.  In 
Gen.  ix,  the  bow  in  the  cloud  is  called  a» 
token  of  the  covenant  not  to  drown  tt,e 
earth.  It  is  so  called  three  times.  Ti>«» 
token  and  the  covenant  are  not  the  sanj* 
thing.  The  token  binds  a  verbal  covenant , 
as  a  seal  does  a  written  covenant,  or  a»» 
signing  a  written  covenant  binus  it.  Ro- 
mans iv.,  2.  "Circumcision  is  a  sign,  *. 
token,  and  a  seal  of  the  covenant  God  mad* 
with  Abraham."  Saints  are  born  of  th* 
water  and  the  Spirit.  John  iii,  5.  lit 
Galatians  iv.,  and  following  verses  th«* 
apostle  speaks  of  those  under  the  law  o« 
Moses  as  born  after  the  flesh  Their  tokeu 
was  in  the  flesh,  and  their  covenant  wa» 
after  the  flesh,  and  so  was  the  inheritance. 
He  speaks  of  those  who  are  born  of  th« 
Spirit.  Their  covenant  is  after  the  Spirit, 
their  inheritance  is  after  the  Spirit,  their 
token  or  earnest  is  after  the  Spirit.  Eph. 
i,  13-14.  "After  you  believed,  you  were 
sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  who 
is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance.  II.  Cor. 
I.  "God  has  sealed  us  and  given  us  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts."  Rom. 
v,  5.  "The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


243 


jur  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit  who  is  given 
unto  us."  Gal.  iv.  "We  receive  the  adop- 
tion of  Sons  in  believing  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  and  being  baptized  into  him.  Then 
because  we  are  sons  God  has  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts."  Col.  ii, 
2.  "  Wo  are  circumcised  in  Christ  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  by  the 
circumcision  of  Christ  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  Romans  ii, 
28-2*9.  "He  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  out- 
wardly, neither  is  that  circumcision  which 
is  outward  in  the  flesh;  but  he  is  a  Jew 
who  is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is 
that  of  the  heart,  in  the  Spirit,  and  not  in 
the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but  of 
God."  My  opponent  confounds. the  indwel- 
ling of  the  Spirit,  which  is  without  hands, 
with  the  impartation  of  the  Spirit  by  bauds. 
He  confounds  the  Spirit  as  the  earnest  of 
our  inheritance,  with  the  impartation  of  the 
Spirit  by  hands  to  confirm  acts  of  inspira- 
tion and  revelation.  He  has  admitted  that 
the  direct  miraculous  influence  is  not  ex- 
erted in  conviction,  conversion,  sanctifica- 
tion,  upbuilding.  Yet,  he  quotes  passages 
where  the  convicting,  converting,  sanctify- 
ing, upbuilding  influence  is  spoken  of  as  the 
present  privilege  of  the  sinner  and  saint,  to 
prove  that  the  miraculous  power  that  he  ad- 
mits has  nothing  to  do  with  conviction,  con- 
version and  sanctiflcationis  also  a  privilege 
of  the  church.  If  he  will  learn  to  rightly  di- 
vide the  word  of  truth  he  will  not  blunder  so. 
Let  us  now  learn  the  object  of  miracu- 
lous power  and  miracles.  John,  xv,  26,  27. 
The  apostles  and  the  Holy  Spirit  were  both 
to  testify  of  Christ,  bear  witness.  Mark, 
xvi,  20.  "And  the  apostles  went  forth  ana 
preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working 
with  them  and  confirming  their  words  by 
signs,  that  followed  their  preaching,  i, 
Cor.  ii,  4.  Paul's  preaching  was  in  a  demon- 
stration of  the  Spirit  and  power.  I,  Thes., 
i,  5.  The  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word 
only,  but  in  power  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
in  much  assurance.  Rom.  xv,  18.  Paul  had 
preached  the  gospel  over  the  Roman  em- 
pire, through  mighty  signs  and  wonders, 
through  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
I,  Cor.,  xiv,  22.  "Tongues  or  miracles  are 
for  a  sign  to  those  that  believe  not,  and  not 
to  those  that  believe."  Hebrews,  ii.  "The 
gospel  was  first  spoken  through  Christ,  and 
confirmed  unto  us  by  those  that  heard 
Christ,  God  bearing  witness  with  them,  by 
signs  and  wonders,  and  manifold  powers, 
and  by  distributions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  ac- 
cording to  his  will."  If  necessary,  we  can 
trace  the  signs  God  gave  to  Moses  and  to 
Pharoah  and  Israel  to  demonstrate  that 
Moses  was  his  servant.  The  signs  he  gave 
to  Gideon  and  others.  These  miracles  are 
a  testimony  that  God  gives  that  the  person 
is  inspired  a  demonstration,  an  assurance,  a 
confirmation.  When  the  word  was  com- 
pleted in  the  new  Testament,  inspirations 
and  revelations  were  no  longer  necessary, 
and  miraculous  powers,  signs  of  revelation 
and  inspiration  are  not  needed.  After  God 
has  authenticated  his  word,  when  he  gave 
it,  was  it  necessary  for  him  to  continue  to 


authenticate  it  by  working  miracles  all  the 
time?  After  the  government  of  the  United 
States  has  authenticated  a  law  by  govern- 
ment seal,  must  it  authenticate  it  by  a  new 
sealing,  every  time  the  law  is  used?  My 
opponent  would  have  God  stand  on  the  wit- 
ness stand  for  ever.  He  would  have  him 
pub  the  seal  of  miracle  to  his  revelations  in 
the  Bible,  every  time  a  man  reads  or 
preaches  it.  We  say  that  the  seal  of  heaven 
put  once  on  the  law  of  God,  the  teaching 
of  the  apostles  is  sufficient.  My  opponent 
wants  the  seal  used  every  time  he  opens 
his  mouth  to  read  the  word  of  God.  It  is 
not  faith  but  lack  of  faith,  as  in  the  case  of 
doubting  Thomas.  Did  my  opponent  stop 
to  think  that  if  miracles  were  the  never 
failing  accompaniment  of  preaching,  in  all 
ages,  they  would  cease  to  be  miracles,  and 
become  the  order  of  nature,  an  ordinary,  a 
common  event?  Will  my  opponent  tell  me 
what  confirmation  an  event  that  always  at- 
tends preaching  gives  to  it?  What  sort  of 
a  sign  would  it  be  ?  The  difference  between 
my  opponent  and  myself  then  is  this:  I 
believe  that  God  inspired  the  men  that  the 
Bible  says  were  inspired.  I  believe  that 
he  confirmed  their  inspiration  by  signs, 
miracles;  I  believe  that  God's  seal  onceset 
to  their  teaching  is  sufficient.  My  opponent 
wants  the  Almighty  to  stand  at  his  elbow, 
like  a  lackey,  to  apply  the  seal  to  his  talk, 
every  time  he  reads  the  Bible,  or  preaches  its 
truths.  The  law  of  God  does  not  sanction 
such  nonsense.  It  is  utterly  opposed  to  it. 
My  opponent  blunders  over  I.  Peter  1,  10, 
The  apostle  declares  that  the  Spirit  that  wag 
in  the  prophets  testified  of  the  glory  that 
should  follow.  He  declares  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  sent  down  from  heaven,  preached, 
through  the  apostles,  the  Gospel.  My  op- 
ponent blunderingly  jumbles  these  two 
manifestations  as  he  does  everything  he 
touches.  My  opponent  blunders  over  "the 
faith  once  delivered  unto  the  Saints  "  in 
Jude.  Romans  iii,  3.  "Shall  the  unbelief 
of  men  make  the  faith,  the  Gospel  of  God 
of  no  effect?"  Gal.  iii,  2.  "Receive  ye  the 
Spirit  by  works  of  law  or  by  the  hearing  of 
faith  which  should  afterwards  be  revealed." 
Eph.  iv,  5.  "One  faith,  the  faith,  the  Gos- 
pel, the  word  of  God."  Then  the  faith  once 
delivered  unto  the  Saints  is  the  Gospel, 
God's  word.  It  had  been  delivered  in 
preaching  before  it  was  committed  to  writ- 
ing. I.  Corinthians  xv,  t.  "I  delivered  unto 
you  the  Gospel."  In  I.  Corinthians  xiii,  Paul 
dsclares  "Though  I  have  faith,  (miraculous 
faith)  so  as  to  move  mountains  it  is  DO  profit 
unless  I  have  Christian  love."  Our  Savior 
says,  Matt,  xvii,  20:  "If  you  have  faith 
(miraculous  faith)  as  a  grain  of  mustard 
seed,  you  can  say  to  this  mountain,  'L»e 
plucked  up  and  cast  into  the  sea,'  and  it 
shall  be  done."  Has  Kelley  or  any  Mormon 
miraculous  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed? 
Let  us  see  him  pluck  up  a  Kirtland  hill 
and  cast  it  into  the  lake.  Belief  of  the  faith 
the  Gospel,  saves,  converts,  sanctifies. 
Miraculous  faith  that  my  opponent  regards 
as  the  all  in  all  of  the  religion  of  Christ,  does 
not  have  one  particle  of  moral  influence. 


244 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  THIRD   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — Last  evening  I  waited  pa- 
tiently for  my  opponent  to  lead  out  upon 
his  proposition,  and  show  the  similarity  and 
agreement  in  teaching,  organization,  prac- 
tice and  doctrine  of  his  with  the  New  Tes- 
tament church  ;  but  the  longer  I  waited  the 
less  I  was  able  to  gather  either  a  compari- 
son of  the  features  of  his  church  with  the 
New  Testament,  or  of  an  explicit  statement 
of  the  teaching  of  either,  so  that  the  audi- 
ence could  compare.  I  noticed,  however, 
that  he  took  particular  pains  to  compare  his 
views  with  what  he  thought  the  views  of 
the  Latter  Day  Saints  were,  and  with  what 
the  views  of  other  churches  were,  not  for- 
getting the  Spiritualists,  Buddhists,  etc. ; 
and,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  always  with  a 
favorable  opinion  in  his  own  mind  of  the 
superiority  of  his  little  system  over  all  oth- 
ers. It  called  to  my  mind  the  prayer  of  one 
of  old,  "Lord,  I  thank  thee  that  I  am  not 
as  other  men."  Now  will  he  please  tell  us 
to-night  what  bearing  all  of  this  had  upon 
the  question  under  discussion  ?  Whose 
faith  is  it  that  is  called  in  question,  and  is 
now  under  discussion  here?  Anybody  else 
except  that  of  "  the  church  of  which  I, 
Clark  Braden,  am  a  member?"  Yet  almost 
all  denominations  and  beliefs  are  dragged 
in  here  by  him,  and  men  and  women  as- 
sailed upon  the  right  and  left,  although  t  hey 
are  not  permitted  under  the  rules  to  offer  a 
word  in  reply  or  defense,  and  whsr  I  can- 
not be  expected  to  answer  the  charges,  be- 
cause they  are  not  in  the  least  touching  the 
question.  Does  he  show  a  disposition  of 
fairness  toothers  in  this?  I  call  attention  to 
this  particularly  because  the  manner  adopt- 
ed by  him  through  the  first  proposition  in 
two-thirds  of  his  work  had  as  little  applica- 
tion to  the  question  under  consideration  as 
the  polygamy  practiced  by  Nicholas  and 
the  body  of  Christians  under  him  in  the  first 
century  had  to  do  with  the  faith  which 
Jesus  and  Paul  preached.  Don't  you  forget 
the  question  under  discussion,  my  friends. 
if  Braden  does.  I  noticed  last  evening  that 
a  wonderful  change  had  come  over  him 
since  the  discussion  of  the  first  proposition; 
in  that,  because  the  Book  of  Mormon  spoke 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  enjoyed  before 
Christ  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  he  said  it 
contradicted  the  New  Testament,  for  that 
said  "  thj  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given ;" 
and  it  \vas  no  consequence  to  him  that  I 
showed  that  the  prophets  before  received  it 
and  spoke  by  it— no,  sir;  he  insisted  it  was 
a  flat  contradiction.  But  now  he  confesses. 
Last  night  he  had  the  Holy  Ghost  inspiring 
all  the  prophets,  from  Adam's  time  to  that 
of  Malachi.  My  few  remarks  upon  that 
seem  to  have  completely  revolutionized 
him.  But  he  has  not  yet  told  us  whether 
they  received  it  through  Christ  or  some 
man,  a  question  asked  him  five  evenings 


ago.  The  idea  thrown  out  by  him  that  the 
Disciples  go  to  the  Bible  for  information 
but  other  churches  go  to  their  creeds,  when 
presented  in  this  false  light  looks  very 
plausible  for  his  side,  sprinkled  over  as  it  is 
with  a  good  deal  of  sophistry ;  and  this 
makes  it  look  very  bad  for  others.  The  in- 
ference is  that  others  go  to  their  creeds  for 
precepts,  whether  based  upon  the  Bible  or 
not,  for  the  reason  that  tbey  have  a  written 
statement  of  what  they  believe,  uotwith- 
standing,  as  they  think,  taken  from  the 
Bible,  while  the  Campbellitex  go  to  the 
Bible.  What  is  the  difference  between  a 
written  statement  and  an  unwritten  one,  so 
far  as  a  comparison  with  the  Bible  doctrines 
is  concerned  ;  and  if  there  is  a  difference, 
would  it  not  be  in  favor  of  the  written,  so 
that  men  could  with  more  certaiiHy  com- 
pare with  the  Bible?  I  am  aware  that  there 
are  formulas  of  faith  and  disciplines  in  the 
world,  and  interpretations  of  the  inspired 
writings,  but  when  I  come  to  examine  crit- 
ically, I  find  among  them  Mr.  Campbell's 
Christian  System;  and  in  many  things  ifc 
comes  as  far  short  of  standing  on  the  Bible 
and  the  Bible  alone,  as  many  others.  Why 
did  he  not  arraign  his  own  creed  instead  of 
going  out  of  the  way  in  this  discussion  to 
attack  others?  I  take  up  this  work  of  Mr. 
Campbell  and  read  upon  page  11  of  tho  pro- 
face,  "Our  aim  is  now  to  offer  to  the  pubU/ 
a  more  matured  view  of  such  cardinal  prin- 
ciples as  are  necessary  to  the  right  inttrpr  - 
tation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  both  IJQ  ac- 
acquiring  and  communicating  a  correct 
knowledge  of  the  Christian  institution.' 

It  sevtms  from  this  that  these  professed 
Pible-alone-people  have  something  to  go  to 
also,  so  that  they  may  know  first  what  Mr. 
Campbell  thought  about  it. 

Turn  to  page  85,  chapter  26,  and  you  have 
the  fifteen  points  of  their  discipline  duly 
arranged.  I  call  Mr.  Braden's  attention  to 
it  for  the  reason  that  when  I  simply  re- 
ferred to  the  matter  in  the  Wilber-Nebraska 
debate  he  got  terribly  beside  himself.  I 
have  the  book  now,  so  that  ii  he  disputes 
me  I  can  soon  decide  the  matter. 

The  chapter  is  headed : 

"THE  CHRISTIAN  DISCIPLINE," 
And  contains  the  points  of  discipline  of  the 
so-called  Christian,  Disciple,  Church  of 
Christ  or  Campbellite  Churchj  as  fur- 
nished by  Alexander  Campbell  himself  for 
that  body. 

In  this  discipline  I  find  a  different  order 
introduced  and  held  out  as  a  rule  of  prac- 
tice to  the  Bible  order.  It  is  the  formal,  or 
"hand-shaking"  order,  or  the  plan  of  re- 
ception of  members  into  the  church  after 
baptism.  This  evidently  takes  the  place- 
of  confirmation  under  the  hands  of  the 
eldership  that  was  practiced  in  the  early 
church. 

Mr.  Campbell,  on    page  86,  makes   this- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


245 


tormal  reception  out  to  be  a  "necessity," 
Although  he  has  not  a  word  of  sanction  for 
tin  the  Bible;  yet,  it  is  pretended  here  by 
ny  opponent  that  they  go  to  the  Bible  alone 
for  their  precepts,  and  are  thus  peculiarly 
different  from  others.  But  this  bauble  I 
shall  fully  puncture  at  another  time,  and 
this  evening  will  take  up  at  once  those 
prominent  points  of  difference  that  ar«  so 
apparent  between  "the  church  of  which  I, 
Clark  Braden,  am  a  member,"  and  theNew 
Testament,  and  examine  them  ;  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  general  differences  are  so  many 
it  would  hardly  be  possible  to  enumerate 
and  make  the  reference  of  an  argument  to 
them  in  a  single  evening. 

The  great  trouble  is  to  find  in  what  they 
do  resemble.  Take  out  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tism lor  the  remission  of  sins,  which  Camp- 
bell began  fully  to  teach  in  1828,  but  which 
was  plainly  set  forth  in  the  Gospel  as  con- 
tained in  the  record  Mr.  Smith  received  of 
the  ancient  inhabitants  of  America  in  1827, 
and  Mr.  Campbell's  church  will  be  as  hard 
to  identify  with  theNew  Testament  church 
as  would  some  of  the  organized  benevolent 
societies  of  our  time.  Good  enough  in  their 
places,  but  not  calculated  to  point  out  the 
straight  and  narrow  way  that  leadeth  unto 
life.  In  their  order  then  I  take  up  : 

I.  The  name  of  the  church,  "Christian, 
Disciple,  Church  of  Christ."  I  referred  to 
the  fact  that  the  word  Christian  was  only 
used  three  times  in  the  Bible. 

1.  In  Acts  11:26,  where  the  saints  were 
called  Christians  at  Antioch. 

2.  Where  Paul  was  dragged  before  the 
king  for  his  faith,  and  Agrippa  says,  "Al- 
most persuadest  thou  me  to  bea  Christian." 
Very  similar  to  the  way  I  have  been  treated 
time  and  again,  when  I  had  placed  before 
persons  the  hope  of  my  promise  in  Christ, 
and    reasoned    with  the  people  from  the 
Bible,    the   answer  would   be  returned: — 
"Well,  I  don't  see  anything  bad  in  what 
these  Mormons  teach  after  all."    Why  do 
they  have  to  nick-name  us,  cast  derision, 
as  those  out  of  Christ  did  the  saints  in  Paul's 
time? 

3.  The  last  is  in  I  Peter,  4:16:  "Yet  if  any 
man  suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be 
ashamed."    Don't  be  ashamed,  if  they  do 
nick-name  you,  who  are  Saints,  and  call  you 
Cnristians,  because  you  have  a  hope  well 
founded  in  the  Messiah.     Nick-names  con- 
tain no  argument,  and  if  you  are  not  of  the 
world,  you  will  certainly  be  nick-named  by 
them.     This  is  the  sum  and  substance  of 
the  teaching  of  Peter  upon  that. 

But  what  were  the  people  of  God  called? 
Disciples?  That  showed  no  distinguishing 
feature  between  Jesus'  disciples  and  Plato's 
disciples.  Disciple  simply  means  a  learner, 
a  follower,  etc.  And  may  be  applied  to 
learners  and  followers  outside  of  religion  as 
in.  The  true  and  distinguishing  name  of 
the  children  of  God  is  that  of  Haints.  soused 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and 
they  are  to  be  known  as  such  when  Jesus 
brings  them  with  him  in  his  second  advent. 
When  he  comes  the  Saints  will  be  with 
him,  and  none  others  at  that  time.  Not 


Saints  only  after  they  are  dead  and  ?one, 
but  Saints  here.  Upon  this  I  hastily  oifer 
my  authorities: 

1.  "Israel  in  the  wilderness  called  Sain  ts." 
Deut.  33 : 2-3, 

2.  "Precious  in  thesightof  the  Lord  is  the 
death  of  his  Saints."    Ps.  116:15. 

3.  "And  the  graves  were  opened  and  many 
bodies  of  the  Saints    which  slept  arose." 
Matt.  27 : 52. 

4.  "Saints  at  Lydia."    Acts  9  . 32. 

5.  "Many  of  the  Saints  shut  up  in  prison." 
Acts  26 : 10. 

6.  "For  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion, 
but  of  peace  as  in  all  the  churches  of  the 
Saints,"     1.  Cor.  14:33. 

7.  "Collection  for  the  Saints."      1    Cor. 
16:1. 

8.  "Fellow-citizens    with    the    Saints." 
Eph.  2:19. 

9.  "For  the    perfecting   of  the  Saints." 
Eph.  4:12. 

Showing  that  they  were  not  perfect 
beings,  but  to  be  perfected  through  the 
instruction  and  teaching  of  a  spiritual 
ministry — not  by  persons  versed  in  man's 
wisdom  only — if  so  they  would  have  their 
hope  in  men  instead  of  the  power  and  wis- 
dom of  God. 

10.  "The  prayers  of  the  Saints."  Rev.  5: 8. 

11.  "The  Saints  are  refreshed    by  thee, 
brother."    Phil.  7th  verse. 

12.  "Salute  all  the  Saints."      Heb.  13:24. 
Besides  the  name  Saints,  they  also  are 

named  after  Jesus  Christ;  Eph.  3:14- 
15;  he  being  not  ashamed  to  call  them 
brethren;  and  hence  we  have  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  cf  the  Saints;  cal- 
led Saints,  and  Latter  Day  Saints, 
in  distinction  of  Former  Day  Saints. 
The  Church  Re-organized  (since  the  or- 
ganization in  1830)  and  hence  properly 
called  The  Re-organized  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  or  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ,  it  being  his  formal  organi- 
zation of  the  Saints. 

Leaving  the  name,  I  pass  to  the  second 
difference.  He  says  Jesus  established  no 
church  before  his  death  or  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. Let  us  examine  this ;  for  it  is  clear 
from  the  New  Testament  that  if  he  did  not, 
he  did  not  establish  any  at  all. 

Matthew  16:  "Upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it."  "And  I  will  give  unto 
thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
These  were  to  enable  Peter  to  act  authorita- 
tively here  on  earth  in  the  church ;  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  being  represented  and 
established  here  under  the  name,  style  and 
title  of  the  church.  18th  chapter,  17th 
verse:  '-And  if  ho  shall  neglect  to  hear 
them,  tell  it  unto  the  church."  And  18th 
verse,  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever 
ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven."  Showing  Peter's  work  in  the 
church,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  then  in 
existence,  as  referred  to,  when  he  says, 
"The  Kingdom  of  God  is  [now]  within 
you."  In  your  midst,  among  you.  Then 
established  and  men  pressed  into  it.  Luke 
16:16. 


240 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


"The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until 
John,  since  that  time  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into 
it." 

How  did  they  get  in,  if  there  was  none? 
But  the  Kingdom,  thevChurch,  was  within 
them.  Not  the  kingdom  as  it  was  in 
heaven,  for  "flesh  and  blood"  could  not 
inherit  up  there,  but  the  kingdom  as  repre- 
sented in  the  church  on  earth.  Matt.  11 :  12. 
"And  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist 
until  now  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  suffereth 
violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force." 
And  also  12:  28:  "But  if  I  cast  put  devils 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  come  unto  you."  But  how  come? 
I  answer  emphatically  that  it  was  under 
the  figure  and  name  of  the  Church.  Jesus 
the  King  was  there;  He  gave  .them  the 
laws  of  the  Kingdom  then  and  there,  as 
also  his  servant  John  taught  before.  He 
had  chosen  officers  to  carry  out  and  minis- 
ter these  laws  and  bring  men  and  women 
into  the  kingdom,  and  they  were  then  and 
there  doing  it,  viz.:  "Translating  them 
into  the  Kingdom  of  His  dear  Son,"  by 
administering  the"  laws  of  the  Kingdom, 
properly  bringing  them  into  the  Church. 
Col.  1 :  13.  Thus  forming,  in  fact,  the 
family  of  God,  making  them  heirs  of  the 
Kingdom,  the  body  of  Christ,  "  which  is 
the  Church,"  Col.  1:  24.  Hence  Jesus 
could  call  them  brethren.  "They*are  not 
of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world." 
John  17:  16.  This  is  why  Paul  said  in  the 
1st  Corinthian  letter :  "And  God  hath  set 
some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles."  When 
was  it  done?  After  Pentecost  day?  No, 
long  before,  as  shown  by  Luke  6:  13.  After 
the  day  of  Pentecost  no  Apostles  were  set 
in  the  Church  except  the  calling  of  others 
to  fill  the  vacancies  made  by  death,  or 
otherwise. 

Braden  says  the  law  of  Moses  extended 
to  Pentecost  day,  and  Jesus  kept  this 
law  in  all  things.  But  Matthew  and  Luke 
say  "  the  law  and  the  prophets  were  until 
John,"  and  that  Jesus  said,  "Before  Abra- 
ham was,  I  am."  That  he  went  through 
the  fields  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  plucked 
the  ears  of  corn ;  and  told  His  disciples, 
"Except  your  righteousness  exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees," 
(these  persons  who  kept  the  law  of  Moses 
and  their  traditions),  "ye  can  in  no  wise 
outer  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Refer- 
ring evidently  to  that  kingdom  which  was 
from  above,  of  which  the  church  on  earth 
was  the  figure,  type  or  representative;  and 
hence  his  disciples  were  not  of  the  world 
because  they  imbibed,  yielded  obedience  to, 
had  partaken  of  the  laws  which  were  from 
above  —  the  laws  of  Christ's  Church, — 
"Therefore  the  world  hateth  you." 

Acts  2:  41:  "Then  they  that  gladly 
receive  the  word  were  baptized,  and  the 
same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  About 
three  thousand  souls."  Added  to  whom? 
To  the  children  of  God  there,  the  Church, 
see  verse  47,  same  chapter,  "  And  the  Lord 
added  to  the  Church  daily  such  as  should  be 
saved."  What  church?  The  church  then 


In  existence,  and  which  had  existed  from 
the  time  Jesus  organized  it,  for  no  act  had 
been  done  towards  further  organizing  it,  so 
far  as  the  history  shows  to  this  time,  except 
to  fill  the  vacancy  in  the  church  caused  by 
the  death  of  Judas  Iscariot.  God  hath  set 
in  the  church  "first  apostles,"  said  Paul. 
And  now  when  this  Judas  falls,  it  is  from 
the  church  ;  for  his  office  was  in  the  church, 
and  his  place,  or  office,  which  is  etill  in  the 
church,  is  filled  by  another.  This  is  the 
sentiment  taught  by  Jesus,  the  great  Head 
of  the  Church,  in  John,  15th  Chapter,  "I 
am  the  vine,"  "  ye  are  the  branches,"  an  i 
now,  not  hereafter ;  and  if  branches,  they 
were  members  in  the  family  of  God,  the 
body  of  Christ,  "which  is  the  Church," 
and  which  was  in  existence  then  and  there. 
Jesus  even  before  John's  time  had  a  church. 
"  This  is  He  that  was  in  the  <  b,  irch  in  the 
wilderness  with  the  angel  that  spake  to 
Him  in  the  mount  Sinai ;  and  with  our 
fathers  who  received  the  lively  oracles  to 
give  unto  us."  Acts  7:  38.  This  is  the 
reason  we  find  elders  in  Moses'  time — the 
70  elders — they  were  officers  in  the  church. 

But  says  ;Braden,  "The  gospel  law 
of  pardon  was  first  preached  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost." 

What  does  he  wish  to  teach  by  this  ? 
That  there  are  two  gospel  laws  ?  That  peo- 
ple received  forgiveness  of  sins  after  Pen- 
tecost differently  from  what  they  did  be- 
fore ?  L«t  us  see.  Luke  i,  76  and  77,  speak- 
ing of  the  work  of  John  says:  "For  thou 
B  halt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  pre- 
pare his  ways  ;  to  give  knowledge  of  salva- 
tion unto  his  people  by  the  remission  of 
their  sins."  Was  this  any  different  gos- 
pel than  that  preached  afterwards?  Mark 
1:4:  "John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness 
for  the  remission  of  sins."  This  seems  to 
me  was  freeing  men  from  their  sins  before 
the  day  of  Pentecost  in  some  other  way 
than  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  dove,  the  lamb, 
and  the  pigeon.  Here,  "the  church  of 
which  I,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member,"  is 
clearly  shown  not  to  be  in  accord  with  the 
New  Testament  pattern  in  doctrine  and 
faith.  "The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until 
John."  Not  John's  birth;  but  till  John 
was  commissioned  by  the  Most  High  to 
teach  the  principles  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
and  came  preaching  the  Gospel  law,  in  con- 
tradistinction to  the  Mosaic,  and  saying, 
"Repent  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand;"  proclaiming  a  law  which  superceded 
the  old  ;  and  when  the  new  came  in  the  old 
was  displaced,  and  for  that  reason  nailed 
to  the  cross.  Not  nailed  to  the  cross  while 
it  was  in  force  and  operative,  but  after  it 
had  performed  its  work  and  God  had  abol- 
ished it. 

4.  Now  I  approach  the  fourth  difference 
and  distinction  between  his  church  and  the 
New  Testament  church  ;  vix.,  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  this  book  by  which 
we  are  to  try  his  church,  there  is  such  a 
baptism  taught  as  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  the  Comforter,  of  which  Jesus 
speaks  when  he  says:  "It  is  expedient  for 
vou  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


247 


Comforter  will  not  come."  Teaching  the 
necessity  of  its  coming;  and  not  only  for 
those  with  him  there,  "but  for  them  also 
who  shall  believe  on  me  through  their 
word."  This  Comforter  which  Jesus  was 
to  send  was  the  Holy  Ghost,  verse  26th, 
14th  chapter  ;  and  for  this  they  were  to 
wait  at  Jerusalem  that  they  might  receive 
this  Holy  Ghost,  which  was  "the  promise 
of  the  Father,"  Luke24:49:  "and  behold 
I  send  the  promise  of  the  Father  unto  you  : 
but  tarry  ye  in  the  City  of  Jerusalem  until 
ye  are  endowed  with  power  from  on  high." 
This  power  from  on  high  was  the  promise 
made  by  John  and  Jesus  when  they  taught, 
"Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
not  many  days  hence."  Not  simply  to  en- 
able them  to  do  signs  and  wonders,  for  they 
did  those  things  before;  but  to  comfort 
them,  and  guide  them  into  all  truth,  so 
they  would  not  have,  or  take,  erroneous 
views  as  to  his  teachings  and  God's  word. 
The  same  is  spoken  of  also  by  Jesus  as  the 
Baptism  of  the  Spirit.  "Except  ye  be 
born  of  the  water  and  of  the  Spirit." 
It  was  in  the  hour  in  which  "the 
true  worrshippers  shall  worship  the  Fath- 
er in  Spirit  and  in  truth;  for  the 
Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him." 
This  Spirit  which  he  wanted  them  to 
have,  —  the  Holy  Ghost  Religion,  —  shall 
be  in  them  a  well  of  water,  "springing  up 
into  everlasting  life" — referring  to  the  giv- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Again,  Jesus  says  : 
'My  words,  they  are  Spirit  and  they  are 
'ife."  Not  that  the  word  itself  is  spirit  dis- 
connected with  anything  else  ;  any  more 
than  the  word  is  life  itself  disconnected 
with  anything  else.  My  opponent  will  hard- 
ly take  the  ground  that  a  man  just  taking 
up  the  word  and  reading  it,  or  even  eating 
it  would  have  the  Spirit  spoken  of  there,  or 
the  life  spoken  of ;  but  as  Jesus  interprets 
it  in  John  12: — "My  commandments  are  life 
everlasting."  "He  thatloveth  mekeepeth 
my  commandments  ;  and  if  ye  keep  my 
commandments,  I  will  send  the  Comforter;" 
(John  14  :  15  and  17,)  which  is  the  Spirit  of 
truth  ;  this  having  come  because  they  obey- 
ed the  word,  and  which  will  make  com- 
plete the  new  birth,  and  "spring  up  into 
eternal  life,"  and  thus  only  is  the  word, 
"spirit  and  life;"  and  for  this  cause  the 
"manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  ev- 
ery man  to  profit  with  all."  I  Cor.  12:7. 
The  wish  of  the  Savior  was  that  all  should 
partake  of  this  spirit.  Hence,  we  are  saved 
"by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Titus  3:  5. 

Those  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  did  not  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  medium 
of  the  word ;  but  by  reason  of  having 
obeyed  the  word;  hence  the  apostle  de- 
scribes the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  be- 
ing that  "which  He  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior."  Titus, 
3:6.  This  is  also  the  idea  conveyed  in 
Ephesians  1st  chapter :  "In  whom  ye  trust- 
ed after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of  truth, 
the  gospel  of  your  salvation."  "Where- 
fore I  also,  after  I  heard  of  your  faith — I 
ceased  not  to  give  thanks  for  you, — that  the 


God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of 
Glory  may  give  unto  you  the  spirit  of  wis- 
dom and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of 
him. 

They  did  not  get  it  through  the  medium  of 
the  word,  for  they  had  long  before  had  that, 
but  through  Jesus  Christ  and  the  ordinance 
of  "laying  on  of  hands."  Acts  8:17,  18. 
"Then  laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and 
they  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  when 
Simon  saw  that  through  the  laying  on  of  the 
apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given, 
he  offered  them  money  saying,  Give  me  also 
this  power  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay  hands 
he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Thus  we  readily  discover  the  sixth  dif- 
ference between  Mr.  Braden's  church  and 
the  New  Testament  church. 

But  these  persons,  he  says,  were  not  bap- 
tized with  the  Spirit.  Oh  no,  only  those  on 
Pentecost  day  and  the  household  of  Corne- 
lius. It  makes  no  difference  to  him  that 
Peter  said  that  which  was  shed  forth  on 
Pentecost  day,  they  should  receive  who 
were  repentant  and  obedient ;  and  althoug 
he  takes  up  the  prophecy  of  Joel  and  shows 
that  "the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  unto 
your  children,  and  unto  all  that  are  afar  off, 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  or  God  shall 
call,"  and  this  was  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  which  Peter  refers  ;  nor  what  has 
been  said  upon  this  by  the  great  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  who  too,  speaks  emphatically 
upon  this  question,  1  Cor.,  12:13:  "For 
by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and  have 
been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit." 

Remember  not  baptized  by  water  into  the 
one  body,  or  into  the  spirit,  but  baptized  by 
"the  spirit  into  one  body,  and  which  is 
equivalant  to  drinking  into  one  spirit." 
Paul  agrees  with  Jesus,  "Born  of  the  water 
and  of  the  spirit,"  and  both  disagree  with 
Braden's  church  ;  therefore  the  church  "of 
which  I,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member,"  is 
according  to  the  pattern  !  Now,  is  not  this 
wise  logic?  There  is  not  a  ghost  of  a  hint 
that  there  is  such  a  thing  taught  in  the 
Bible  as  where  the  spirit  is  given  through 
the  medium  of  the  word.  When  Peter 
taught  the  Gentiles  it  fell  on  them  inde- 
pendently, and  so  it  came  to  the  Ephesian 
saints  after  they  had  believed  the  word  and 
had  complied  with  the  ordinance  of  "lay- 
ing on  of  hands."  Just  so  at  Samaria, 
and  on  Pentecost  day;  for  before  this 
Jesus  had  "lifted  up  his  hands  and  blessed 
them."  Paul  says:  "Icame  not  to  you  in 
word  only,  but  in  power  and  the  Holy 
Ghost."  "He  therefore,  thatministereth  to' 
you  the  spirit,  and  worketh  miracles  among 
you,  doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
or  by  the  hearing  of  faith." 

Now  I  come  to  the  Hebrew  letter  which 
he  claimed  referred  to  the  law  which  they 
had  before  Christ.  It  reads  :  "Therefore 
leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  let  us  go  on  to  perfection."  [It  is 
not  the  old  law  then,  but  the  principles  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,]  of  faith,  repentance, 
baptisms,  fof  water  and  the  spirit]  and  of 


218 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment."  Heb. 
6: 2  and  3. 

"Who  were  these  Hebrew  saints  to  whom 
the  apostle  is  addressing  this  letter?  I 
answer — Those  of  Jerusalem ;  and  who  had 
before  this  accepted  of  the  principles  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ;  but  had  forgotten  to 
build  upon  them  aa  they  should.  The 
apostle,  however,  exhorts  them  to  go  on 
and  perform  the  work  to  which  they  had 
given  adherence:  "Not  laying  again  the 
foundation."  And  then  in  verse  4,  they 
are  told,  "  For  it  is  impossible  for  those  who 
were  once  enlightened  and  have  tasted  of 
the  heavenly  gift,  and  were  made  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  have  tasted  of  the 
good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the 
world  to  come,  if  they  shall  fall  away,  to 
renew  them  again  unto  repentance." 

This  is  the  language  the  apostle  uses 
towards  these  Hebrew  Saints,  and  no 
wonder.  They  were  among  those,  doubt- 
less, who  had  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift 
on  Pentecost  day  and  at  Samaria,  and  they 
should  not  have  to  lay  again,  the  second 
time,  the  foundation  principles  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  of  faith,  repentence,  bap- 
tisms, laying  on  of  hands,  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  and  eternal  judgment.  Ah!  the 
reason  is  evident  why  "baptisms"  is,  as 
it  is  put  by  the  apostle  in  the  plural,  they 
had  been  "  born  of  the  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,"  as  Jesus  had  directed,  and  thereby 
tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift.  Then  Paul  in 
closing  his  letter  could  well  say,  for  he  is 
talking  to  those  who  had  accepted  these 
first,  or  foundation  principles:  "And  I 
beseech  you,  brethren,  suffer  the  word  of 
exhortation,  for  I  have  written  a  letter  unto 
you  in  few  words." 

But  he  did  not  wish  them  to  keep  doing 
their  first  works  over  again, — remember, 
first  works  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ — but "  go 
on  [in  the  Gospel  of  Christ]  unto  perfection." 
Please  look  back  three  verses :  "  For  when 
for  the  time  you  ought  to  be  teachers, 
[they  had  not  progressed  and  improved  as 
they  ought  to  have  done, hence]  ,ye  have  need 
that  one  teach  you  again,  which  be  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God."  Heb.  5 : 12. 

Certainly  there  were  never  positions  more 
secure  than  I  have  taken  on  these  texts. 
Baptisms,  then,  and  laying  on  of  hands, 
are  foundation  principles  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ.  But  Mr.  Braden's  church  is  just 
the  reverse  in  doctrine  and  practice.  He 
has  neither  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  nor 
the  practice  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  his 
church,  therefore,  he  concludes  that  he 
stands  on  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone. 
No  creed  in  his  church.  O,  no!  Turn  now 
toEphesians  4:  ft.  ''One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism."  By  this  one  baptism  they 
are  baptized  into  one  body,  of  course,  for 
Paul  again  says,  "  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body."  1  Cor.  12:  13. 
Ah!  Then  if  the  word  baptism  in  Ephe- 
siana  4 :  5,  refers  to  the  elements  of  the  new 
birth,  it  cannot  exclude  the  Spirit.  There 
i»  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  No  n»»n  can 
successfully  deny  this.  "  Ye  shall  be 


tlzed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  (the  Spirit),  not 
many  days  hence."  Acts  1:  5.  "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be 
born  of  the  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God." 
John  3:  5.  "Not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  His 
mercy  He  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regen~ 
eration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  He  shed  on  us  abundantly,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Savior."  Titus  3  :  5, 6.  Not 
through|the  medium  of  the  word,  remember. 

This  baptism,  then,  is  used  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  same  apostle  refers  to  it  in  the 
Galatian  letter,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew. 
"For  as  many  of  yon  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Jesus  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  Gal. 
3:27.  Here  are  twe  acts  referred  to;  the 
baptizing  into,  and  the  putting  on — "wash- 
ing of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  What  is  it  to  put  on  Christ? 
Simply  to  go  into  the  water  ?  No.  That  act 
is  only  for  the  cleansing,  freeing  from  sin  : 
thus  men  may  be  swept  and  garnished,  but 
after  this,  shall  the  house  be  left  empty? 
No,  not  in  Christ.  Hence  he  has  ordained 
the  supply  of  grace  in  the  heafrt  by  means 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  "I  will 
not  leave  you  comfortless,"  says  Jesus,  but 
"I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give 
you  another  comforter,  that  he  may  abide 
with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth ; 
whom  the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it 
seeth  him  not,  neither  knowethhim;  but 
ye  know  him  ;  for  he  dwelleth  with  you, 
aud  shall  be  in  you."  John  14-16, 17.  These 
were  to  receive  the  "baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  While  Jesus 
was  with  them  in  person,  they  might  en- 
dure without  it,  but  not  otherwise.  There- 
fore they  afterwards  received  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  did  Israel,  who  were 
"baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea,  and  did  all  drink  of  that  spiritual 
rock,  which  rock  was  Christ."  Why,  says 
one,  they  partook  of  Christ,  then,  did  they? 
Certainly.  ThatwasonlyoneofMr.  Braden's 
whims  in  criticizing  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
because  they  enjoyed  Christen  this  conti- 
nent. Peter  says,  referring  to  those  before 
Christ:  "Searching  what,  or  what  manner 
of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in 
them  did  signify,  when  it  testified  before- 
hand the  suffering  of  Christ  and  the  glory 
that  should  follow."  1  Peter  1:11.  This  is 
sufficiently  emphatic,  showing  that  the 
Nephite  prophet  was  right,  and  my  oppo- 
nent wrong,  and  just  so  upon  this  point  of 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  after  Christ. 
Those  who  are  "born  of  the  water  and  of 
the  Spirit  are  made  complete  in  one  birth 
by  the  "washing  of  regeneration,  and  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Thus  they  have  given  to  them  a  deed, 
"earnest"  of  their  inheritance  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  which  "earnest,"  or  deed,  is 
the  "gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  There  ia 
none  in  Mr.  Braden's  church,  however,  but 
there  was  in  the  apostolic  church.  There- 
fore my  opponent  believes  that  Mr.  Camp- 
bell was  a  restorer, 

(Time  called.) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


249 


MR.  BRADEN'S   FOURTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — My  opponent  wants  to  know 
why  we  do  not  use  the  term  "Church  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  instead  of  "Church  of 
Christ."  He  may  ask  the  Holy  Spirit  why, 
in  Romans  16-16,  he  did  not  say  "The 
Churches  of  Jesus  Christ"  or  "The  Re-or- 
ganized Churches  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints."  Let  him  settle  it  with  the 
Holy  Spirit.  He  wants  to  know  if  men  can 
not  seek  for  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
even  if  it  is  a  promise.  Yes,  all  to  whom 
God  has  promised  it,  can  seek  it.  But  my 
opponent  can  not  dodge  in  that  way.  We 
have  proved,  and  he  dare  not  deny  it,  that 
there  is  but  one  baptism  in  the  church.  He 
dare  not  deny  that  the  one  baptism  that  is 
in  the  church,  is  a  command,  not  a  promise, 
is  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  is  in  water.  Holy  Spirit 
baptism,  that  is  not  a  command,  but  is  a 
promise,  is  not  in  the  name  of  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  not  unto  remission 
3f  sins,  is  not  the  one  baptism  that  is  in  the 
church.  That  ends  that  matter.  My  op- 
ponent blunders  outrageously  over  Peter's 
language  in  Acts  2.  Peter  does  say  that 
this  event,  this  occurrence  at  which  you  are 
astonished,  is  that  event  or  occurrence  of 
which  Joel  prophesied,  when  he  said,  and 
quotes  Joel's  promise.  In  the  34th  verse 
Peter  declares  that  Jesus  has  shed  forth, 
this  series  of  wonders  that  you  see  and  hear. 
Not  the  Spirit,  for  they  did  not  see  him. 

Let  us  now  narrow  down  our  contest  to 
as  narrow  a  compass  as  possible.  We  have 
given  ten  reasons  why  we  do  not  believe 
that  the  baptism  in  the  Spirit  is  in  the 
church  now.  My  opponent  has  not  noticed 
them,  although  stated  twice,  and  he  has 
been  challenged  twice  to  notice  them.  We 
need  not  re-state  them.  We  have  given  our 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  promise  of 
the  Comforter  was  to  the  apostles  alone. 
My  opponent  and  myself  agree  that  it  refers 
to  the  miraculous  influence  of  the  Spirit. 
Until  he  notices  our  arguments,  he  confesses 
that  the  promise  was  to  the  apostles 
alone.  My  opponent  dare  not  deny  that  ' 
Jesus  says  that  believers  alone  shall  enjoy 
Joel's  promise.  We  have  given  our  reasons 
for  confining  it  to  the  apostles.  He  had  re- 
buked the  apostles  for  their  unbelief.  He 
told  them  (theapostles)  to  preach.  He  said 
the  signs  should  follow  those  who  went  out 
preaching,  believing  what  he  said. 

The  context  declares,  the  apostles  went 
forth  preaching;  the  Lord  did  confirm  the 
preaching  of  theapostles,  and  the  signs  did 
follow  the  preaching  of  the  apostles,  who 
believed  and  preached.  My  opponent  will 
not  deny  that  Peter  says  that  such  believers 
as  the  Lord  should  call,  will  receive  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  gift.  We  are  agreed  that 
it  refers  to  the  miraculous  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  that  alone.  "The  prom- 


ise" is  Joel's  promise,  just  quoted  above, 
the  only  promise  Peter  quotes  or  refers  to. 

How  did  God  call  believers?  By  the  case 
of  the  Samaritans,  who  had  believed  and 
were  baptized,  were  saints  and  had  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  who  could 
not  receive  the  miraculous  power  until  the 
apostles  laid  hands  on  them,  although  the 
mighty  wonder-worker,  Philip,  full  of  the 
miraculous  power  of  the  Spirit,  was  with 
them ;  by  the  case  of  Saul,  who  could  not 
receive  the  Spirit  until  Ananias,  a  special 
apostle,  laid  hands  on  him  ;  by  the  case  of 
the  disciples  at  Ephesus,  who  could  not  re- 
ceive the  Spirit  until  the  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  had  laid  hands  on  them ;  by  the 
case  of  Timothy,  who  received  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  through  Paul's  hands  as  one  of 
the  Presbytery,  and  at  the  order  of  the 
Presbytery,  we  learn  that  no  one  received, 
or  could  receive,  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  mirac- 
ulous gift  except  by  the  imposition  of  an 
apostle's  hands.  When  my  opponent  points 
to  a  single  case  outside  of  the  baptism  in 
the  Spirit  that  received  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
any  other  way  than  by  the  imposition  of  an 
apostle's  hands,  he  proves  his  case.  I  am 
not  to  prove  that  no  one  did.  Let  him 
prove  that  one  did.  I  am  not  to  prove  a 
negation.  He  need  not  jabber  about  Saul 
of  Tarsus,  for  he  received  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  could  only  receive  it  through  one  spe- 
cially and  miraculously  sent  by  the  Spirit. 
a  special  apostle  for  that  purpose. 

All  the  cases  he  quotes,  the  Samaritans, 
Saul,  the  household  of  Cornelius,  the  dis- 
ciples at  Ephesus,  the  events  in  the  church 
at  Antioch,  are  all  cases  of  the  miraculous 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit..  The  issues  are, 
"Did  any  enjoy  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
except  at  Pentecost  and  at  the  house  of  Cor- 
nelius?" We  have  proved  that  no  one  ever 
did,  except  on  those  occasions.  Did  any 
enjoy  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  outside  of  bap- 
tism in  the  Spirit,  on  whom  an  apostle  had 
not  laid  hands?  Let  him  cite  a  case. 

Lastly  the  great  issue  is,  "  How  long 
were  these  gifts  to  continue?"  I  was 
amused  at  my  opponent's  dodge  over  Eph. 
iv.  He  reads  that  apostles,  prophets  and 
evangelists,  with  miraculous  powers,  and 
pastors  and  teachers  with  miraculous  pow- 
ers, were  given  for  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints  unto  the  work  of  the  ministry.  I 
accept  all  that.  They  were  given  to  perfect 
the  saints  for  such  work  of  ministry" as  the 
churches  then  needed.  Also  for  the  up- 
building of  the  body  of  Christ.  I  believe 
that.  All  these  workers  with  miraculous 
powers  were  needed  to  build  up  the  body, 
to  give  to  the  church  government  and  con- 
stitution, and  to  guide  it  until  that  was 
done.  There  is  not  a  word  of  difference 
over  that.  The  issue  is,  how  long  were 
apostles  and  prophets  that  were  miraculous 
to  continue?  How  long  were  miraculous 


250 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


powers  to  be  given  to  the  evangelists,  pas- 
tors and  teachers?  How  long  were  miracu- 
lous powers  to  continue?  "Forever."  as 
Rellev  says? 

No!  Paul  says,  "Until;"  Until  when, 
Paul?  "Until  we  all  attain  to  the  unity  of 
the  taith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son 
of  God."  Or  until  the  one  faith,  of  which 
Paul  spoke  is  completed.  Until  the  word  of 
God  is  completed.  "Until  we  attain  also 
unto  a  fullgrown  man,  unto  the  measure  of 
the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ."  Or 
until  the  new  man,  composed  of  Jew  and 
Gentile;  the  body  of  which  Christ  is  the 
head,  the  church  is  completed  in  organiza- 
tion. These  miraculous  powers  are  to  con- 
tinue until  then;  then  they  cease.  If  my 
opponent  will  read  all  the  context  and 
rightly  divide  the  word,  it  will  utterly  ex- 
plode his  cavils  and  quibbles.  My  oppon- 
ent nibbles  around  the  argument  based  on 
1  Cor.,  12-13-14.  Having  been  once  landed 
high  and  dry,  with  it  through  his  gills,  the 
fish  nibbles  cautiously.  We  agree  that  the 
Corinthian  church  had  in  it  nine  spiritual 
gifts.  That  these  gifts  constituted  powers, 
nine  miraculous  powers  in  the  church. 

Paul  compares  the  church  to  the  human 
body.  Christ  is  the  head.  These  spiritual 
powers  are  the  members,  not  the  trunk  of 
the  body.  My  opponent  will  not  deny  that 
Christ  is  still  the  head  of  the  church,  ai- 
thongh  in  heaven,  and  not  in  the  church, 
&3  he  was  among  men  before  his  ascension. 

Christ  is  in  the  church,  in  his  word,  his 
law,  his  government,  his  Holy  Spirit.  Not 
miraculously,  but  in  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

The  Apostles,  prophets,  and  all  miracu- 
lous powers  are  in  the  church,  just  as  Christ 
is  in  the  church,  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
their  words  and  acts  recorded  there,  for 
our  example,  in  what  they  left  on  the  pages 
of  the  New  Testament  as  the  embassadors 
and  representatives  of  Christ. 

We  no  more  remove  the  apostles  of  Jesus, 
nor  his  inspired  imbassadors,  his  represen- 
tatives, his  delegates  out  of  the  church, 
when  we  say  that  they  had  no  successors, 
then  we  remove  Christ  out  of  the  church, 
when  we  say  he  had  no  successor. 

We  no  more  need  persons  to  succeed  the 
persons  who  exercised  the  spiritual  powers 
in  the  church,  than  we  need  a  person  to 
succeed  Christ.  We  no  more  need  the  con- 
stant presence  and  ministry  of  men  with 
the  nine  gifts,  that  were  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  than  we  need  that  Jesus  should 
stay  on  earth,  and  be  in  the  church  in 
person. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  present  in  his  indwell- 
ing power,  though  the  truths  he  revealed  by 
inspiration,  just  as  God  is  present  in  the 
operation  of  natural  law,  that  took  the 
place  of  miracles  of  direct  creation. 

We  no  more  remove  the  Holy  Spirit  from 
the  church  than  we  remove  God  from 
nature.  There  is  no  more  need  of  miracu- 
lous power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  miracles 
of  revelation,  and  signs  in  religion,  than 
there  is  need  of  miracles  of  direct  creation 
in  nature. 


The  apostle  speaks  of  the  exercise  of  spir- 
itual gifts,  as  analogous  to  the  exercise  of 
miraculous  power  in  creation.  It  was  pro- 
visional and  preparatory  to  a  higher  and 
better  law,  and  would  pass  away  when  it 
had  prepared  the  way  for  that  higher  and 
better,  and  would  be  succeeded  by  it.  He 
declares,  "desire  earnestly  the  best  spiritual 
gifts,"  while  they  are  the  order  of  the 
church.  "Nevertheless,  I  show  unto  you 
a  more  excellent  way,"  than  the  exercise 
of  the  best  of  these  spiritual  gifts.  The 
apostle  is  contrasting  two  states  of  the 
church.  One  is  the  exercise  of  the  best  of 
these  spiritual  gifts.  Theother  is  more  ex- 
cellent than  that..  In  the  eighth  verse  fol- 
lowing he  declares  prophesying,  all  utter- 
ance by  inspiration  shall  cease.  Knowl- 
edge imparted  by  miracle  shall  cease. 
Tongues,  all  miracles  that  are  signs  shall 
cease.  That  is  the  more  excellent  way.  Or 
that  shall  be  the  state  of  the  church,  when 
that  more  excellent  way  has  prevailed. 
That  is  as  clear  as  sunlight.  He  confirms 
it  when  he  says  "That  under  these  spirit- 
ual gifts,  knowledge  and  prophesying  are 
but  fragmentary  in  each  exercise,  they  are 
partial,  can  only  give  a  part  at  a  time." 

He  declares  that  when  that  which  is  per- 
fect has  come,  the  partial  shall  pass  away. 
This  is  not  heaven  or  the  future  state.  There 
is  notareferenceto  heaven  or  the  future  state 
in  the  chapters.  Paul  is  talking  of  the  state 
of  the  church  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. The  partial  childish  formative  state 
is  the  condition  of  the  church  under  theoe 
spiritual  gifts.  Its  state  when  it  is  a  man, 
when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come,  is  when 
the  word  of  God,  that  which  makes  Chris- 
tians perfect  and  thoroughly  furnishes  them 
to  all  good  works,  is  completed ;  and  the 
body,  the  church,  the  new  man,  of  which. 
Christ  is  the  head,  is  completed  in  organi- 
zation. This  is  plain  common  sense.  Both 
members  of  the  comparison  are  states  of  the 
church,  and  both  are  states  under  the 
Christian  dispensation. 

He  then  resumes  his  former  exhortation, 
"Desire  the  best  gifts,  but  above  all  to 
prophesy,  to  teach  by  inspiration,  while 
spiritual  gifts  are  the  order,  and  until 
the  word  is  completed,  then  prophesying 
will  cease."  He  describes  the  condition  un- 
der gifts,  just  as  Moses  described  the  con- 
dition of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness. 
He  then  speaks  of  a  better  state  than  the 
exercise  of  such  gifts,  as  Moses  spoke  of  a 
better  condition,  of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan, 
better  than  the  condition  in  the  wilderness. 

He  then  returns  to  directions  how  they 
were  to  exercise  these  spiritual  gifts,  while 
they  were  the  order  of  the  church,  and 
until  that  better  way  is  ushered  in,  just  as 
Moses  resumes  directions  to  the  Israelites 
how  to  live  until  they  enter  Canaan,  or 
while  they  are  in  the  wilderness.  There  is 
no  more  three  states  in  one  case  than  in  the 
other.  That  sets  to  one  side  that  little 
quibble. 

We  have  called  bur  opponent's  attention 
to  the  fact  that  our  Savior  constituted  the 
apostles  his  representatives,  embassadors, 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


251 


delegates,  to  organize  the  church,  first  pro- 
visionally, during  which  time  spiritual 
gifts  prevailed,  and  to  give  to  it  the  consti- 
tution, the  New  Testament,  and  to  organize 
it  permanently  under  that  constitution,  and 
tn  accordance  with  it.  His  claim  that  these 
spiritual  powers,  these  provisional  powers, 
and  these  constitution-making  powers,  these 
delegates,  should  be  forever  in  the  church, 
is  as  absurd  as  to  claim  that  the  old  govern- 
ment under  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
and  the  Constitutional  Convention  should 
forever  remain  in  session  and  be  forever 
making  constitutions. 

He  would  either  never  have  the  govern- 
ment ordained  by  the  constitution,  for  the 
old  government,  and  the  convention  would 
not  give  way  to  it.  Or  if  the  government 
ordained  by  the  constitution  and  the  con- 
stitution ever  were  in  full  force,  he  would 
have  the  farce  of  a  form  of  government  from 
which  all  authority  had  been  taken,  and  a 
constitution-making  convention  that  had 
nothing  to  do/ and  could  do  nothing,  for  a 
constitution  had  already  been  made  and 
was  in  force. 

If  he  contends  for  new  revelations  he  im- 
peaches the  word  of  God.  If  he  contends 
for  miracles  to  confirm  the  word  of  God, 
already  .perfect  in  the  New  Testament,  he 
has  the  farce  of  God's  sealing  forever  that 
to  which  he  once  put  a  seal.  If  he  does  not 
have  new  revelations  of  truth  in  addition 
to  those  in  the  Bible,  he  has  God  eternally 
engaged  in  the  farce  of  confirming  what  he 
has  once  confirmed.  In  no  way  can  he 
show  that  inspiration,  miracles  and  revela- 
tions are  necessary,  unless  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  imperfect  and  incomplete,  as  the 
Old  Testament  was  incomplete.  If  the 
work  of  the  Son  of  God  was  incomplete,  as 
was  the  work  of  Moses,  and  if  he  stands 
related  to  Joe  Smith  as  Moses  did  to  the 
Son  of  God,  then  we  need  Joe  Smith,  new 
revelations,  inspired  men  to  give  them, 
and  miracles  to  confirm  them.  Will  he  take 
that  position? 

If  Jesus  does  not  stand  related  to  Joe 
Smith  as  Moses  did  to  Jesus ;  if  the  New 
Testament  does  not  stand  related  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon  as  the  Old  Testament  does 
to  the  New;  if  the  spiritual  powers  of  the 
days  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  do  not  stand 
related  to  the  spiritual  powers  of  Joe  Smith 
and  Mormonism  as  the  spiritual  power  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  stands  related  to 
the  spiritual  powers  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, what  need  of  Joe  Smith,  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  Mormon  spiritual 
powers  and  revelations  and  miracles  to  suc- 
ceed those  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  as 
they  succeeded  the  Mosaic  dispensation? 
What  need  of  instruction  and  tutors  for 
children  if  the  church  became  a  man  in 
Christ?  What  need  of  an  everlasting  con- 
stitution-making convention?  What  need 
of  an  eternal  sealing  of  God's  word  by  mira- 
cles? If  such  a  course  were  pursued,  would 
not  they  cease  to  be  miraculous?  My  oppo- 
nent's position  is  a  contradiction  *  of  all 
scripture  and  common  sense.  He  would 
have  God  continue  to  bring  animals  and 


plants  Into  existence  by  miracle  of  creation 
after  preparing  the  way  for  and  establish- 
ing the  control  of  natural  law. 

My  opponent  wants  to  know  why  nob 
have  the  perfect  word  of  God  and  miracu- 
lous gifts  now,  both  in  the  church.  Because 
such  is  not  now  the  decree  of  the  constitu- 
tion, God's  word.  He  undertakes  to  find 
fault  with  the  course  I  have  pursued  in  my 
argument.  I  have  presented  frankly  what 
we,  as  a  people,  teach  and  practice.  If  it 
Is  so  like  the  New  Testament  teaching  that 
he  can  find  no  fault  with  it,  the  fault  is  ia 
his  attempt  to  assail  it,  and  not  in  my  pre- 
sentation of  it.  My  opponent  confounds 
two  operations,  two  influences  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Spirit,  as  enjoyed  in  inspiration  before 
Christ,  ana  that  higher  manifestation  that 
was  not  given  till  after  Christ  was  glorified, 
which  was  sent  forth  in  the  name  of  Christ. 
John  14:26. 

We  differ  from  people  who  have  v,  ritten 
creeds  in  this.  They  decide  cases  of  faith 
and  discipline  by  an  understanding  of  an 
understanding  of  the  Bible,  the  creed.  We 
decide  them  by  our  understanding  of  the 
Bible  itself,  found  in  every  instance  by 
original  investigation  of  the  Bible  itself, 
and  not  by  an  investigation  of  our  under- 
standing of  the  Bible,  a  creed.  "Saint"  is 
a  name  for  children  of  God  in  all  ages. 
"Christian"  is  the  name  of  saints  who  are 
followers  of  Christ.  In  that  name  they  are 
called  after  Christ,  are  called  by  his  name. 
Saint  would  not  call  them  after  his  name  ; 
it  would  not  call  them  by  his  name. 

He  admits  that  Paul  never  heard  of  "Lat- 
ter Day  Saints,"  nor  of  "Re-organized" 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints,  f  Paul  had  heard  of  "Christian"  and 
gloried 'in  it.  He  had  heard  of  "Church 
of  God"  and  "Church  of  Christ."  "Paul  I 
know,  and  Jesus  of  Nazareth  I  know,  but 
who  are  ye."  The  Bible  knows  no  such 
Ashdodish  lingo.  Our  Savior  told  his  apos- 
tles when  announcing  to  them  the  law  of 
the  church,  and  instructing  them  in  it,  that 
when  the  church  was  organized  by  them, 
members  in  certain  cases  should  lay  certain 
things  before  the  church.  That  no  man 
proves  that  the  church  was  then  in  exist- 
ence than  his  telling  them  what  they  should 
do  after  they  were  endued  with  power  from 
on  high,  proves  that  they  were  then  endued 
with  power.  The  kingdom  was  not  then  in 
existence,  for  after  the  death  of  Jesus, 
Joseph  of  Arimathea  was  still  waiting  for 
the  kingdom.  Kingdom  has  a  variety  of 
meanings.  The  kingdom  is  spoken  of  in  a 
variety  of  aspects. 

The  Kingdom  was  among  the  Israelites 
in  Christ's  day,  in  promises,  in  preaching 
that  announced  that  it  was  at  hand,  ap- 
proaching, and  not  as  an  established  insti- 
tution, for  Jesus  himself  said  it  was  only  at 
hand,  approaching.  The  law  and  prophets 
were  preached  until  John.  John  preached 
that  the  Kingdom  was  at  hand.  Not  that 
it  was  in  existence,  and  he  in  it.  He  was 
not,  for  the  least  that  was  in  the  Kingdom, 
when  established,  was  greater  than  John. 

My  opponent  must  be  hard  pushed  when 


252 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


he  quotes  Colossians  2:13,  "hath  trans- 
lated us  into  the  Kingdom,"  written  thirty 
years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  fo  prove  that 
the  Kingdom  was  in  existence  before  his 
death. 

The  apostles  were  in  the  kingdom  as  soon 
as  selected,  he  tells  us.  They  were  selected 
at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
Just  before  his  death,  not  six  weeks  before, 
Jesus  said,  "I  will  build  my  church  ;  "  and 
my  opponent  admitted  it  was  still  future  at 
that  time.  Will  he  explain  how  the  apos- 
tles werein  the  Kingdom,  three  years  before 
that  time,  when  the  Kingdom 'was  future, 
was  not  in  existence  at  that  time?  He  read 
"added  to  them,"  "added  to  the  church," 
said  of  what  happened  on  and  after  the  day 


of  Pentecost.  If  he  will  read  such  language 
in  regard  to  events  before  the  day  of  Fente 
cost,  he  will  prove  that  the  church  existe* 
before  that  day.  There  was  an  Israelitt 
congregation  in  the  wilderness,  but  not  th« 
"church  of  Christ."  Not  a  soul  had  beei 
baptized  in  to  Christ.  They  had  been  bap 
tizedinto Moses.  As  themiraculous  influence 
of  the  spirit  is  no  part  of  conversion,  by  hit 
own  admission,  it  is  no  part  of  the  birth  ol 
the  water  and  spirit.  That  ends  that  mattei 
if  he  does  not  back  out  of  the  truth  he  ad- 
mitted.  We  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  now  a  f  tei 
that  belief  and  obedience  that  makes  ut 
sons  of  God.  "Because  we  are  sons  of  God, 
he  sends  forth  the  Spirit  into  our  heaite," 
the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  FOURTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — It  seems  that  if  there  is  any- 
thing to  be  attached  to  the  manner  of  one 
of  the  disputants  in  a  debate,  I  should  not 
have  anything  to  say  this  time.  My  oppo- 
nent has  finished  up  the  argument — closed 
the  thing  down.  He  says,  "There  is  only 
one  baptism  in  the  church,  and  that  one  is 
not  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  that 
settles  it."  What  is  the  use  of  argument? 
Braden  can  settle  it  alone  without  any 
trouble.  Just  because.  Now  can't  you  see 
the  point,  my  friends  ? 

Inbtead  of  giving  you  an  interpretation  of 
the  passage,  he  says,  I  assert  that  there  is 
but  one,  and  that  is  not  by  the  Spirit.  But 
Jesus  said.  "Born  of  the  water  and  of  the 
Spirit."  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  Peter 
says,  "Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  And  this  was  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,  so  admitted  by  Mr.  Braden. 
Those  at  Pentecost  and  those  of  Cornelius' 
household  received  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  he  says,  only.  But  why  should  God 
give  it  to.  them,  if  not  in  the  church?  Again 
Paul  says,  ''By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles;  whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and 
have  been  all  madetodrink  intooneSpirit." 
Here  the  authority  of  Jesus,  Peter  and  Paul 
settles  the  question  adversely  to  Mr  Bra- 
den, for  they  say  there  is  a  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  church. 

The  passage  in  Ephesians  4:5.  which  Mr. 
Braden  professes  to  rely  upon,  I  showed 
fully  in  my  last  speech  did  not,  when 
properly  understood,  exclude  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  from  the  Christian  system. 

But  my  opponent  thinks  they  had  no  use 


for  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  after  tbe  first 
century,  for  the  reason  that  they  hud  the 
word  after  that,  and  Jude  said,  "contend 
for  the  faith,"  etc.  But  whom  did  he  tell 
to  contend  for  the  faith  ;  those  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries,  or  those  of  the  first? 
Jude  is  exhorting  the  saints  in  his  time, 
who  also  have  these  spiritual  gifts,  having 
been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  "con- 
tend fnf  the  faith  delivered  (then)  to  the 
saints.  They  had  both  then.  So  also  had 
the  Corinthian  Saints.  Paul  says,  I  Cor. 
15:1,  "Moreover,  brethren,  I  declare  unto 
you  the  Gospel,  which  I  preached  unt<  you 
which  also  ye  have  received  and  wherein 
ye  stand." 

Here  these  people  are  plainly  shown  to 
not  only  have  the  law,  the  Gospel  in  word, 
but  also  the  gifts.  Enjoying  both  at  the 
same  time,  and  having  both  more  fully  than 
the  people  have  either  now  ;  yet,  we  are 
gravely  told  that  all  this  spiritual  endow- 
ment was  to  cease  when  the  word  came.  At 
the  same  time  too,  he  says  the  Spirit,  what 
little  we  have,  comes  through  the  medium 
of  the  word.  But  if  that  is  true,  would  it 
not  also  follow  that  they  who  have  the  most 
word  would  have  the  most  Spirit  and  vice 
versa. 

Whichever  way  Mr.  Braden  turns  in  this 
net,  he  winds  himself  just  that  much 
tighter. 

He  says  now,  that  I  have  conceded  certain 
things  were  all  right.  O  yes,  Kelley  has 
given  away  his  case.  But  did  he  show  you 
wherein?  Take  out  the  baptism  in  water 
that  he  holds  to,  and  in  what  other  thing  is 
he  with  the  Bible?  John  the  Baptist 
preached  and  administered  that  rite;  but 
there  is  now,  as  theu,  something1  else  to  seek 
after.  A  greater  baptism  than  that  of 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


2J3 


water.  "I  Indeed  have  baptized  you  with 
water,"  says  John;  but  this  was  not  the 
great  central  thought  in  the  religion  of 
Christ.  Mark  1:8,  "He  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  was  the  great 
central  thought  of  both  John's  and  Jesus' 
preaching,  besides  that  of  all  the  apostles 
after  them.  Hence  we  find  Paul  the  first 
thing  enquiring  at  Ephesus,  "Have  ye  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ?  " 

But  again,  he  says  the  Mormons  believe 
so  and  so,  pretending  to  tell  you  what  I 
believe. 

The  question  under  discussion  now  is  not 
what  I  believe,  or  what  the  Mormons  be- 
lieve, if  he  wishes  to  nickname  the  Saints 
that ;  but  what  does  Bradeu  and  the  so- 
called  Christian,  Disciple  or  Camp  belli  te 
church  believe. 

What  the  Saints  believe,  and  how  far 
that,  belief  agrees  with  the  Bible,  we  will 
consider  under  the  third  question,  and  I 
shall  not  attempt  to  avoid  the  issue. 

He  takes  up  the  plain  declaration  of  Jesus 
in  John  3:5,  and  undertakes  to  translate. 
The  word  Spirit,  he  says,  is  from  the  Greek 
word  Pneumatos.  Well,  suppose  it  is,  does 
that  make  any  difference?  Is  his  position 
upon  this,  that  the  word  means  breath,  or 
wind,  as  some  of  our  Adventist  friends 
claim,  and  therefore  Jesus  did  not  mean 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  but  of  breath  or  wind? 

Mr.  Braden :  1  said  it  was  Spirit,  not  wind. 

Mr.  Kelley:  Why  do  you  refer  to  the 
word  wind  at  all,  then,  in  giving  your  in- 
terpretation? In  your  use  of  the  word 
wind,  breath,  etc.,"y°u  make  it  appear  as 
though  Jesus  referred  to  the  wind. 

Mr.  Braden :  I  said  the  translation  of  the 
3d  of  John  was  wrong. 

Mr.  Kelley :  You  will  have  a  chance.  I 
am  arguing  that  it  is  not  wrong,  but  right, 
and  consistent  with  all  other  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  the  apostles.  The  Greek  word 
Pneumatos  is  properly  translated  Spirit, 
signifying  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  Cor.  2:10, 
"But  God  hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by 
his  (Pneumatos)  Spirit.  For  the  (Pneumd) 
Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea  the  deep 
things  of  God."  Again,  Rom.  8:16,  "The 
Spirit  (from  Pneuma  again)  beareth- wit- 
ness with  our  spirit  (pneumati)  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God." 

These  are  texts,  and  I  might  give  many 
others,  where  even  Mr.  Braden  himself 
could  not  claim  that  the  word  Spirit  was  a 
mis-translation.  What  argument  then  is 
there  in  trying  to  re-tianslate  John  by  put- 
ting a  different  word  there?  Suppose  we 
translate  the  word  Pneumatos  to  mean 
simply  an  element  and  not  spirit;  in  what 
will  it  benefit  the  matter?  Read  it  thus, 
fixed  up:  "Born  of  the  water,  and  of—" 
what?  The  element  of  water  again? 
Breath,  air,  wind,  or  what?  Spirit  is  the 
most  consistent,  and  it  is  true,  and  that  is 
what  Jet<us  said  and  meant.  Hence  we 
have  written  in  Acts  1:5,  Jesus'  words: 
"  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water  ;  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Hoiy  Ghost 
(Pneumati.  Sjuriij  not  many  days  uence." 

But  he  wants  me  to  answer  the  question 


as  to  whether  the  people  of  Samaria  were 
sinners,  whom  Philip  baptized,  before  they 
received  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  answer,  no  more  than  the  apostles  were 
sinners  before  they  received  it  while  they 
were  tarrying  at  Jerusalem  waiting  for  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  be  poured  out  as  had  been 
promised. 

Will  Braden  answer  as  to  whether  he 
considers  the  120  at  Pentecost  sinners  up  to 
that  time?  The  people  of  Samaria,  although 
they  had  obeyed  the  word  and  had  great 
joy,  wanted  something  else — they  wanted 
the  "promise  of  the  Father,"  aa  that  was, 
"to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call ;"  but  they  did  not  receive  it  prior  to 
the  confirmation  by  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
for  Peter  says,  "  for  as  yet  he  was  fallen 
upon  none  of  them."  Yet  this  was  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  the  Comforter,  which  alone 
could  give  them  a  right  to  the  inheritance. 
He  tries  to  make  out,  however,  that  when 
they  have  the  word  of  truth  they  have  the 
other  also,  as  per  consequence;  but  where 
are  his  proofs?  Here  at  Samaria  they  had 
the  word  but  not  the  Spirit.  However, 
those  who  had  received  the  word  from 
proper  motives  afterwards  received  the 
Spirit  through  the  laying  on  of  hands.  So 
also,  as  declared  in  the  first  of  Ephesians, 
those  who  received  the  word,  after  that  they 
believed,  they  were  sealed  with  that  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise  which  is  the  earnest  of 
their  inheritance. 

But  had  the  Spirit  anything  to  do  in  their 
conversion,  he  asks.  I  answer  that  it  was 
not  given  to  them  as  a  comforter,  seal  of 
adoption ,  or  as  "the  promise  of  the  Father," 
before  conversion,  any  more  than  it  was 
given  as  such  to  Peter,  James  and  John 
prior  to  Pentecost.  Yet  will  he  say  God  by 
his  Spirit  had  nothing  to  do  with  Peter, 
James  and  John  before  this? 

Jesus  said.  "No  man  can  come  to  me  ex. 
cept  the  Father  draw  him."  I  apprehend 
that  the  Father  has  much  to  do  in  bring- 
ing people  to  the  point  where  they  may  re- 
ceive the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
they  do  not  give  him  credit  for.  But  be- 
cause of  this  is  it  any  reason  that  they 
should  not  have  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit, 
or  the  seal  of  adoption,  the.means  by  which 
they  may  indeed  manifest  their  right  to  the 
inheritance  when  they  shall  be  called  to 
give  an  account  before  the  Judge  of  both 
the  quick  and  the  dead  ? 

Again  he  thinks  that  it  was  not  Christ's 
church  in  the  wilderness.  No,  that  was  only 
Moses'  church. 

But  Paul  says  Christ  was  in  the  church 
In  the  wilderness,  and  if  Christ  was  in  it, 
that  is  more  than  Mr.  Braden  can  show  for 
his  church.  And  if  Christ  was  in  it,  it  was 
indeed  His  church. 

He  attempts  to  turn  one  of  my  arguments 
by  referring  to  the  passage,  "The  Kingdou. 
of  God  is  within  you."  in  order  to  .h».  *,nat 
the  church  was  not  there  then.  Jesus  wrier 
usmp  this  language  is  talking  to  the  wicKec 
Pharisees.  Luke  17:20.  "And  when  be  «a° 
demanded  of  the  Pharisees,  when  the  King- 
dom of  God  should  come,  heanswered  them 


254 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


and  said,  the  Kingdom  of  God  cometh  not 
with  "observation  ;  neither  shall  they  say, 
lo  here  !  or  lo  there!  for  behold,  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  within  you." 

He  does  not  tell  these  wicked  persons  that 
the  Kingdom  was  within  them — in  their 
hearts  as  we  sometimes  hear — but  in  their 
midst.  [Among  you].  Look  on  the  margin 
of  your  reference  Bible;  the  word  among ia 
given  as  a  better  one.  The  thought  and  in- 
struction presented  by  Jesus  at  the  time  is, 
that  the  kingdom  was  well  represented 
then  in  their  midst.  And  had  they  but 
opened  their  eyes  they  could  have  beheld 
the  same  ;  but  it  was  not  in  such  pomp  and 
splendor  as  to  attract  the  attention  of  the 
vile  or  indifferent.  Hence,  "not  with  ob- 
servation." Notwithstanding  this,  Jesus 
the  King  was  there.  He  had  announced 
the  laws  of  the  kingdom,  and  urged  their 
acceptance,  thus  putting  them  in  force. 
He  had  chosen  officers  then  and  there  to 
administer  these  laws  ;  and  they  were  be- 
ing administered.  Men  and  women  were 
becoming  subjects  of  this  king  daily,  and 
the  power  of  the  kingdom  was  felt,  not 
only  upon  the  good,  but  the  evil ;  and  hence 
we  find  that  even  the  evil  spirits  had  to 
obey.  "And  I,  If  I  cast  out  devils  by  the 
power  of  God,  then  the  Kingdom  of  God 
is  come  unto  you,"  said  Jesus.  This  had 
come  under  the  form  and  organization  of 
the  church.  And  although  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  stood  disputing  the  fact  like  my 
opponent  here,  Jesus  argues  that  if  these 
things  are  done,  then  the  kingdom  is  there 
in  fact,  no  difference  how  much  they  may 
cavil  over  the  matter.  The  very  fact  that 
these  things  are  accomplished,  viz.,  "The 
sick  healed,"  "devils  cast  out,"  "the  dead 
raised,"  and  that  "the  poor  had  the  gospel 
preached  unto  them,"  is  overwhelming 
proof  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  with  which 
men  have  to  do  in  this  life — the  church — 
was  an  established  fact. 

The  word  kingdom  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament  to  not  only  represent  the  church 
here  as  in  Luke  16:16,  Matt.  11 ;  12,  and 
7  :  29  ;  but  also  at  times  as  referring  to  the 
kingdom  when  it  is  to  be  revealed  in  glory 
and  majesty,  as  in  Matt.  6:10,  26:29,  and 
Mark.  15:43.  This  last  refers  to  the  text  he 
quoted  where  Joseph  of  Arimathsea  waited 
for  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  it  was  not 
the  church,  or  the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
that  he  watched  for ;  but  the  time  when  the 
glory  of  the  kingdom  should  return  to  Is- 
rael ;  when  one  should  come  and  "Establish 
the  kingdom  and  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
his  father  David  forever." 

But  he  says,  his  church  claims  that  Christ 
is  among  his  people.  I  know  he  does,  and 
so  do  all  others.  But  how  does  he  know? 
His  very  principles  do  not  permit  Christ  to 
do  anything  in  the  church  if  he  should  be 
IE  It.  The  distinction  is  this  : — We  not  only 
oial\_  that  Christ  is  in  the  church,  but  that 
a».  'A  act.  direct  his  people,  answer  them, 
in  *>!. ess  them  directly.  Being  the  head  of 
t)  *  *.»iurcu,  he  can,  and  does  communicate 
with  ihe  body  and  in  an  intelligent,  reason- 
able manner. 


My  opponent  pretends  to  have  Christ 
along,  but  it  is  only  as  a  kind  of  a  silent 
partner.  It  is  a  more  absurd  position  than  if 
he  would  say,  Jesus  was  not  in  the  church 
at  all.  For  he  places  him  in  his  church  where 
he  must  observe  the  evil,  and  then  by  his 
creed,  binds  the  Master  so  he  is  not  permit- 
ted to  speak,  or  in  any  way  protest  against 
their  unlawful  works.  Do  not  deceive 
yourselves  my  friends;  where  Jesus  is,  there 
his  power  will  be  felt.  "If  I  by  the  power 
of  God  do  these  things,  then  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  come."  The  converse  of  the  propo- 
sition is :  If  the  power  is  not  made  mani- 
fest, to  wit:  In  the  healing  of  the  sick, 
casting  out  devils,  speaking  with  spiritual 
gifts,  and  preaching  the  Gospel  in  power 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  the  king- 
dom, or  the  church  of  Christ  in  fact,  is  not 
represented.  But,  there  is  simply  an  or- 
ganization "Having  a  form  of  Godliness, 
but  denying  the  power  thereof."  2Tim.3:5. 

I  ask  my  opponent  to  point  out  a  single 
instance  in  the  world's  history,  where 
Christ  has  ever  had  a  church  on  earth,  one 
that  was  acknowledged  and  accepted  of 
him  in  any  way,  when  he  had  not  inspired 
men  in  the  same,  and  the  people  were 
not  I  lest  with  the  presence  of  this  power? 
Wheie  they  had  not  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  and  the  sick  were  not  healed;  men 
blest  with  prophecies,  tongues,  visions,  wis- 
dom, knowledge,  faith,  discernment  of 
spirits  and  interpretations.  In  which  too, 
there  was  not  either  an  apostle  or  prophet? 
Can  he  mention  a  single  time  within  the 
past  five  thousand  years  of  the  history  of 
the  race  when  such  an  anomalous  thing 
took  place?  Yet  he  pretends  to  say  his 
church  is  Christ's  church.  But  don't  he 
know  hundreds  of  others  that  are  widely 
different  from  his,  are  claiming  the  same 
thing?  Is  Christ  divided?  What  reason 
is  there  in  claiming  that  a  church  which  de- 
nies all  communication  of  Christ  to  it; 
that  rejects  the  idea  of  present  inspiration 
of  Jesus ;  that  rejects  the  idea  of  the 
manifestations  of  the  spirit  that  Jesus  prom- 
ised to  be  with  his  children  is  in  fact  Christ's 
church?  The  idea  is  preposterous.  In  the 
language  of  the  apostle,  I  feel  like  saying 
to  such:  "Awake  thou  that  sleepest,  aud 
arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give 
thee  light." 

But  it  is  claimed  that  the  Campbellites 
have  apostles  in  their  church.  Ah  !  do 
thev  ?  How  do  they  have  them  ?  So  as  to 
speak  and  act  in  the  church,  "for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,"  as  they  did  in  the  church 
established  by  Jesus.  'Oh  no.  It  is  only  a 
turn  Braden  has.  He  wants  to  carry  the 
idea  that  they  have  dead  apostles  and 
prophets  in  their  church.  What  are  they 
in  there  for  then,  and  who  are  they?  It  is 
not  Peter,  or  Paul,  or  James,  I  assure  you, 
for  they  are  in  the  church  Triumphant — 
they  said  they  were  going,  ere  they  left. 
"If  our  earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle 
were  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  of  God, 
an  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the 
heavens."  2  Cor.  5:1.  "Knowing  that 
shortly  I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle, 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


255 


«ven  as  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  showed 
rue1'  2  Peter  1:14.  But  says  Braden,  Is 
jiot  Christ  in  the  church,  and  he  died  too? 
Yes,  Christ  is  in  his  church;  but  how? 
Answer,  by  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give 
you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide 
with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  ; 
whom  the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it 
seeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him.  But 
ye  know  him  ;  for  he  dwelleth  with  you 
and  shall  be  in  you.  I  will  not  leave  you 
comfortless.  I  will  come. unto  you."  John 
14 :  16-19.  Here  i?  fully  set  out*  the  manner 
of  Christ's  presence  in  his  church,  but  not 
BO  the  apostles.  This  is  the  Spirit  that 
Jesus  shed  forth  upon  them  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  It  is  that  which  Jesus  speaks  of 
in  the  2'ith  verse  of  the  same  chapter  :  "But 
the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  iny  name,  he 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all 
things  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I 
have  said  unto  you. " 

But  Braden  has  already  disclaimed  the 
ideaofit  being  in  the  church  now,  hence  it  is 
shown  beyond  all  controversy  that  Christ 
can  not  be  in  his  church.  The  apostles 
were  set  in  the  church  for  a  purpose,  to 
edify  the  church  ;  not  forever,  as  Braden 
said*,  I  believed ,  but  till  the  church  is  edified, 
"and  we  all  come  to  a  unity  of  the  faith,  to 
a  perfect  man  in  Christ."  That  is  what  I 
said,  and  that  is  what  is  written.  Again, 
he  thinks  I  am  wrong  as  to  Joel's  prophecy, 
because  he  says  they  could  not  see  the 
Spirit,  and  Peter  says,  ''this  which  ye  see 
and  hear." 

Could  not  see  the  Spirit !  Who  said  so? 
My  opponent,  that  is  all.  The  record  says 
they  both  saw  and  heard  it.  "And  suddenly 
there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a 
rushing,  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there 
appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as 
of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And 
they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  Acts 
2: 1-5. 

Then  they  did  both  see  and  hear  the 
Spirit.  And  John  beheld  the  "Spirit  like  a 
dove  descending  and  lighting  upon  him." 
Yes,  the  Spirit  can  be  seen  and  heard.  So 
much  for  another  one  of  Braden 's  wise  ex- 
positions of  Scripture.  This  is  like  his  posi- 
tion as  to  the  Spirit  being  in  the  church. 
O  yes,  he  says,  I  believe  in  the  Spirit. 
Kelley  misrepresents  me.  But  he  wants  it 
in  a  modified  form,  a  different  thing  alto- 
gether from  what  was  in  the  church  then. 
That  is  the  reason  I  say  he  has  none.  When 
he  changes  its  form,  purposes,  powers, 
operations  and  fullness,  he  has  a  different 
thing.  He  thinks  it  a  terrible  thing,  if  he 
he;irs  of  the  Methodists  sprinkling  with  a 
little  water  for  baptism,  changing  the  ordi- 
nance Jesus  instituted.  He  says,  it  is  no 
baptism  at  all.  But  at  the  same  time  he 
comes  in  and  says,  just  give  us  as  little  of 
the  Spirit  as  possible.  A  very  little  will  do 
now.  Can  he  not  see  that  it  is  a  greater 


evil  to  the  Christian  system  to  try  to  limit 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  than  to  limit  the 
baptism  of  water — to  limit  Spirit  in  baptism 
than  to  limit  water  in  baptism? 

But  the  question  of  authority  has  been, 
raised,  and  he  says  that  Mr.  Campbell 
claimed  the  word  of  God  as  his  authority. 
Very  well ;  if  he  did  we  will  go  to  the  word 
of  God  and  see  what  it  says : 

1.  Acts  20:28:  "Take  heed  to  yourselves 
and  to  all  the  flock  of  Gpd,  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers." 

Plere  the  word  of  God  gays  the  Holy  Ghost 
made  persons  overseers,  ministers  of  the 
word  ;  but  Mr.  Campbell  said  there  was 
none  now  calling  ministers  into  the  church  ; 
be  was  certainly  not  the  restorer  as  to  this 
part  of  the  gospel  then. 

2.  Actsl3:2,  the  word  speaks  again  :  "And 
the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barna- 
bus  and   Saul  for  the  work   whereunto    I 
have  called   them.     And   when    they  had 
fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their  hands  on 
them,  they  sent  them  away." 

Here  again  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  agent 
and  authority  for  the  calling  of  the  minis- 
ter, and  the  laying  on  of  hands  the  ordi- 
nance used  to  convey  the  authority. 

3.  Again  John  20:21:  "As  my  Father  hath 
sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."     How  was 
Jesus  called  and  sent?    Heb.  5:5,  6.     "So 
also  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made 
an  high    priest ;  but  he  that  said  unto  him, 
Thou  art  my  son ;  to-day  have  I  begotten 
thee.    As   he  saith   also  in  another  place, 
Thou  art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedec." 

No,  not  even  Jesus  would  take  the  honor 
from  the  word,  and  undertake  to  administer 
in  the  house  of  God. 

4.  Again  we  are  told:  "No  man  taketh 
this   honor  unto  himself,   but  he  that   is 
called  of  God  as  was  Aaron."    Heb.  5,4. 

Aaron  was  called  by  the  Lord  communi- 
cating his  will  in  the* matter  to  Moses,  and 
directing  the  ordination  by  his  Spirit  as  in. 
other  cases.  Numbers  28:1. 

Where  is  it.  then,  Mr.  Campbell  finds  any 
authority  for  his  acts  in  the  word  ?  Let  me 
examine  further. 

5.  1  Cor.  7:17:  "But  as  God  hath  distri- 
buted to  every  man,  as  the  Lord  hath  called 
every  one,  so  let  him  walk.    And  so  ordain 
I  in  all  churches."     Here  it  is  again.    God 
does  his  work  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  as 
Mathias  was  chosen.    And  they  prayed  and 
said,  "Lord,  show  which  of  these  twothou 
hast  chosen."     Acts   1:24.     Again   I  ask  if 
Mr.  Campbell  is  with  the  record  as  he  claims, 
where   did  get   his  authority   since  he  re- 
jected  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
that  our  other  Christian   friends  had   been 
long  praying  for,  and  God  answered  him 
not  by  this  Holy  Spirit,  neither  hy  prophets, 
nor  by  dreams,  nor  by  Urimand  Thummim? 

I  will  answer  it,  as  my  friend  seems  to  be 
ignorant  on  the  topic. 

You  will  find  it  in  Barton  W.  Stone's  his- 
tory, about  page  175:  "  We  concluded  if  we 
had  authority  to  preach  we  had  authority  to 
baptize."  "If  we  had  authority  to  preach." 
Here  it  Is!  Their  whole  church  hang* 


256 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


upon  an  if.  Man-made  from  foundation 
to  top.  And  yet  they  are  going  about,  or  at 
least  Braden  is,  calling  the  Saints  blasphe- 
mers because  we  promise  the  people  that 
they  may  have  a  realization  of  the  bless- 
ings of  God's  kingdom  here  if  they  obey 
him  so  they  may  have  a  firm  assurance  of 
their  acceptance  with  him ;  and  thus  they 
can  find  out  whether  we  are  impostors  here 
for  themselves.  But  the  Disciples  go  about 
promising  the  greatest  gift  of  God,  which 
is  eternal  life,  if  they  will  only  conform  to 
their  water  baptism ;  but  their  converts, 
they  say,  shall  not  hear  from  God  upon  this 
highest  of  all  matters  to  their  being,  so 
they  may  know  whether  their  preachers 
are  impostors  or  not.  They  make  them 
wait  till  they  get  to  that  "  bourne  from 
whence  no  traveler  returns  "  before  they  let 
them  know  anything  about  it,  and,  of 
course,  they  receive  no  deed  to  this  prom- 
ised inheritance.  Now  who  is  the  most 
consistent?  Yet  he  tells  you  my  doctrine 
is  blasphemous.  Why  is  it?  Because  it 
differs  from  the  Bible?  No.  For  Jesus 
Bays,  "These  signs  shall  follow  them  that 
believe,"  and  that  is  what  we  promise  to 
the  believer.  It  is  for  the  reason  that  we 
differ  from  him  that  he  talks  that  way. 
That  is  all.  Whether  he  hugs  it  to  his  bo- 
som or  not,  it  is  the  outcroppings  of  that 
spirit  of  intolerance  that  is  adverse  to  ihe 
great  Christian  system  as  reflected  by 
Christ,  and  this  is  another  grand  distinctive 
difference  between  his  church  and  the  New 
Testament  church  as  left  by  the  apostles. 
This  makes  ten  differences  to  begin  with, 
broad  ones,  too. 

It  was  rather  amusing  on  last  evening  to 
hear  my  opponent  state  that  Mr.  Alexander 
Campbell  was  not  a  reformer,  but  a  re- 
storer. If  a  restorer  he  must  have  brought 
back  something  that  was  lost.  That  is,  the 

S erfect  church  that  was  established  by 
esus  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Notwith- 
standing this  wonderful  claim  made  by  my 
opponent  that  their  church  is  the  restored 
one,  yet  he  don't  say  that  theirs  is  the  only 
true  church.  This  is  another  strange  diver- 
sion. There  is  but  one  other  person  who 
has  lived  in  this  age  who  claims  to  have 
been  a  restorer,  and  that  was  Joseph  Smith. 
All  others  who  have  gone  forward  in  church 
organization  only  made  the  claim  of  being 
reformers.  Now  before  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  restore  the  church  it  must  be  lost. 
This  restoration  my  opponent,  in  the  person 
of  Mr.  Campbell,  claims  to  have  effected.  If 
so,  then  it  is  the  true  church,  and  all  this 
talk  that  they  don't  say  that  they  are  the 
only  true  church  is  some  of  his  "  balder- 
dash," unless  he  accepts  the  Latter  Day 
Saints  as  another  true  one;  for  if  necessary 
to  restore,  all  not  restored  must  in  some 
sense  be  lacking,  hence  not  true.  But  he 
makes  faces  at  the  Church  of  the  Latter 
Day  Saints,  and  calls  it  nasty,  and  "gone 
to  seed."  Where  is  the  other  true  one  ex- 
cept the  one  "of  which  I,  Clark  Braden,  am 
a  member."  Please  name  one.  Mr.  Hmith 
was  honest  in  his  claim,  and  said  that  God 
had  restored  the  true  church  by  his  hands 


through  the  administration  of  an  angel, 
just  as  it  was  to  be  restored  as  shown  in 
prophecy,  and  that  all  others  were  in  some 
particulars  wrong,  not  excepting  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's restored  church.  Because  of  this 
claim,  a  great  many  got  mad  at  Mr.  Smith, 
including  Mr.  Campbell's  followers,  who 
were  claiming  to  be  in  a  restored  church, 
and  in  order  to  meet  his  claims  and  refute 
his  positions,  a  number  of  them  gathered 
together,  including  a  large  number  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  restored  Disciples,  now  prac- 
ticing the  doctrine  of  love,  and,  "As  ye 
would  that  men  should  do  to  you  do  ye  even 
so  to  them,"  and  put  "  tar  and  feathers"  on 
Joseph's  bare  back  and  told  him  to  "git." 
Of  course  this  was  the  restored  churclfand 
restored  Disciples  that  did  this.  Smith 
was  consistent,  and  stuck  as  tight  to  his 
claim  as  did  the  tar  and  feathers  to  his  bare 
back.  But  my  opponent  is  inconsistent 
when  he  says  that  Mr.  Campbell  restored 
the  true  church,  and  notwithstanding  all 
his  labor  and  effort  at  restoring,  it  is  no 
more  right  than  others  ;  yet  Braden  affirms 
it  is  just  like  the  church  that  the  old  time 
Saints  were  identified  with  when  Paul 
ministered  to  them. 

That  there  would  be  a  necessity  for  a 
restoration  was  clearly  predicted  by  Paul, 
and  John  and  others,  and  this  is  admitted 
by  all  reformers,  and  the  restorer,  Mr. 
Campbell.  Paul  says  the  coming  of  the  Sou 
of  Man  will  not  take  place  "till  there  comes 
a  falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be 
revealed."  2  Thess.  2.  And  John  the  rev- 
elator  says:  "And  it  was  given  unto  him 
to  make  war  with  the  Saints  and  overcome 
them;  and  power  was  given  him  over  all 
kindreds,  and  tongues,  and  nations."  Rev. 
13.  The  history  of  the  church  confirms  these 
predictions,  and  others  of  like  import.  By 
reason  of  these  statements  and  the  history 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christian  light  and  civil- 
ization, all  reformers  say  there  was  an  apos- 
tacy ;  hence,  it  made  it  possible  for  them 
to  be  reformers.  Mr.  Campbell  united  in 
this  belief  and  declared  as  follows  : 

"The  day  of  light  so  illustrious  In  its  beginning,  i.e., 
the  gospel  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  became  cloudy. 
The  Papacy  arose  and  darkened  the  heavens  for  a  long 
period,  obscuring  the  brightness  of  the  risen  glory  of 
the  Sun  of  righteousness,  so  that  men  groped  in  dark- 
ness.  By  the  reformation  of  the  17th  century  that  dark 
cloud  wasbroken  in  fragments,  and  though  the  heavens 
of  gospel  light  are  still  obscured  by  many  clouds— the 
sects  of  various  names — the  promise  is  that  at  evening 
time  it  shall  be  light  The  primitive  gospel,  in  its 
effulgence  and  power,  is  yet  to  shine  out  in  original 
splendor  to  regenerate  a  world."— Hay  den's  History 
of  the  Disciples  in  the  Western  Reserve,  page  36. 

Mr.  Campbell  gave  expression  to  this  in 
1826.  It  was  after  that  date  that  the  "prim- 
itive gospel  in  its  eTulgence  and  power" 
was  to  shine  out.  If  he  was  ever  a  restorer, 
it  was  after  that  date-  for  it  was  after  this 
that  the  gospel  was  to  shine.  The  "Sects," 
the  reformed  churches,  the  Episcopalian, 
Calvinists,  Presbyterians,  Methodists  and 
others,  are  represented  by  him  as  obscur- 
ing the  "heavens"  like  so  many  dark 
"clouds."  If  they  were  dark  clouds  then.and 
are  now  as  then,  how  many  true  churches  are 
there  besides  the  one  of  which  "I,  Clark 
Braden,  am  a  member?" 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


257 


These  are  the  utterances  of  this  wonder- 
ful apostle  of  restoration.  About  four  years 
after  this  date  the  "primitive  gospel  did 
shine  out,"  by  the  authority  of  the  angel's 
message;  but  Mr.  Campbell  got  mad  at  it 
and  set  about  being  a  restorer  himself. 
Walter  Scott  had  been  preachiugall  through 
the  Western  Reserve  baptism  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  as  a  member  of  the  Mahoning 
Association,  and  that  they  should  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — that  there  was 
a  Millennium  day  spoken  of,  and  contend- 
ing that  they  should  have  Christianity  as 
it  was.  Sidney  Rigdon  was  the  great  ora- 
tor and  leader  of  this  great  Mahoning  Bap- 
tist Association.  Scott  and  Rigdon  and 
Osborn  and  Alexander  Campbell  were  all 
contending  in  1826  for  the  reinstating  of 
"primitive  Christianity."  It  was  not  then 
revealed,  says  Mr.  Campbell.  In  1830  the 

§ospel  began  to  be  preached  in  New  York 
tate  and  over  the  Western  Reserve.  A 
number  who  labored  in  the  Reform  move- 
ment investiga'ted  and  accepted  it,  and 
among  them  Mr.  Rigdon.  All  that  they 
had  been  praying  for,  for  years,  was  pre- 
sented to  them.  Some  accepted  and  some 
rejected. 

Among  those  who  rejected,  was  Mr.  A. 
Campbell;  and  he  told  Mr.  Scotland  Mr. 
Osborn  not  to  preach,  "You  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  any  more;  so 
they  Jid  not.  Page  75  of  Hayden's  history. 
Now  they  began  to  blacken  lligdon's  char- 
acter. He  had  dwelt  right  here  on  the 
Reserve  for  years.  Was  preaching  con- 
stantly. Well-known  by  every  one.  Com- 
muning with  members  of  the  Association 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  considered  worthy 
beyond  question.  But  when  he  espoused 
the  new  faith,  that  he  and  Scott  and  Camp- 
bell h:id  been  praying  for  and  talkingabout, 
and  which  was  too  formidable  for  them  to 
overthrow,  he  soon  became,  according  to 
their  vocabulary,  all  that  was  bad,  even  ac- 


cused afterwards  of  having  been  in  league 
with  Smith  for  several  years  in  order  to  get 
up  a  new  faith  ;  and  Smith  over  in  New 
York  State  and  but  just  a  little  upwards  of 
14  years  of  age.  It  is  much  easier,  and  a 
thousand  times  more  reasonable,  to  believe 
in  miracles  and  angels  than  to  believe  that 
under  the  circumstances  Rigdon  and  Smith 
could  have  been  in  communication  with 
each  other;  and  this  story  never  would 
have  been  hatched  up,  had  it  not  been  that 
Smith  was  illiterate,  and  they  hoped  to  give 
some  plausible  answer  for  not  accepting  the 
truth.  For  it  is  well  known  that,  if  the 
faith  of  the  Saints  is  not  true,  that  Sidney 
Ri<rdon  himself  was  one  of  the  worst  hum- 
bugged men  by  it  that  ever  belonged  to  the 
church  and  lived  and  died  under  the  de- 
lusion. 

Having  rejected  the  Gospel  message  Mr. 
Campbell  and  associates  set  about  to  get  up 
a  church  of  their  own;  and  after  trying  for 
nearly  fifty  years  to  name  it  they  have  not 
yet  positively  decided  whether  it  is  the 
Christian  Church  or  the  Disciple  Church. 
Campbelhte  Church  seems  to  more  fittingly 
express  it  than  anything  else,  as  it  received 
Mr.  Campbell's  impress  all  through.  This 
institution  which  we  will  call  the  Disciple 
Church  is  said  by  Mr.  Campbell,  the  re- 
storer, to  have  been  built  on  the  "Bible  and 
the  Bible  alone."  The  meaning  of  this  is, 
that  it  was  a  new  thing  under  the  sun  and 
that  they  rejected  all  creeds  in  its  establish- 
ment, and  that  it  is  an  exact  pattern  of  the 
church  of  God  as  was  established  by  Jesus 
and  the  apostles.  This  my  opponent  under- 
takes to  show.  When  John  the  Baptist 
came  preaching  he  said,  "He,  that  sent  me 
to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto 
me,  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit 
descending  and  remaining  on  him.  the  same 
is  he  that  bnptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
John  1  :  l.S. 

(Time  called). 


258 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   BRADEN'S   FIFTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — We  will  first  dispose  of  the 
question  whether  the  church  was  in  exist- 
ence before  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  gos- 
pel has  been  preached  in  three  ways ;  I. 
in  promise;  II  in  its  formative  period  ;  III, 
as  an  accomplished  fact.  The  church  has 
been  spoken  of  as  existing  in  three  con- 
ditions. I,  as  future;  II,  as  in  formation; 
I II,  as  completed.  The  gospel  was  preached 
in  promise  to  Abraham,  saying,  "In  thee 
and  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."  II  The  gospel  was 

{reached  in  process  of  development  Mark.  1. 
.  "The   beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God."    III.   The  gospel 
as  an  accomplished  fact,  1  Corinthians,  xv: 

"Now  brethren  I  declare  unto  you  the  gospel  which 
1  preached  unto  you,  which  ye  also  received,  and 
wherein  ye  st»nd.  and  by  which  you  are  saved,  if  ye 
keep  in  memory  what  1  p  cached  unto  you,  unless  ye 
have  believed  in  vain  For  I  have  delivered  unto  you 
the  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received  how  that 
Christ  died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
was  buried  and  thai  he  rose  again  the  third  day  ac- 
cording to  the  scriptures." 

The  gospel  in  promise  could  be  preached 
before  the  church  existed.  The  gospel  in 
process  of  development  could  be  preached 
to  prepare  the  way  for  the  church.  But  the 
gospel  in  fact  as  the  foundation  of  the 
chnrch,  could  not  be  preached  until  Christ 
died  for  men  and  rose  for  their  justification. 
Christ  is  the  foundation  of  the  church.  Hia 
Messiahship  is  the  basis.  For  Christsays  :— 
"On  it  will  I  build  my  church."  It  could 
not  be  built  until  he  demonstrated  his 
Messiahship  by  his  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion. 

,  lie  kingdom,  the  church  is  spoken  of  as 
yetfuture.  John  preached,  "TheKingdom  is 
at  hand" — approaching,  not  that  it  existed  ; 
and  he  was  in  it.  Je»us  preached  the  king- 
dom is  at  hand,  approaching,  not  that  it 
existed ;  and  that  he  was  in  it.  He  said, 
after  he  had  chosen  all  of  his  apostles,  and 
but  six  weeks  before  his  death,  "I  will 
build  my  church  on  the  truth  ;  that  I  am 
the  Messiah."  It  was  then  future.  Mark, 
ix,  1.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  "There  are 
some  of  those  that  stand  here  that  shall  not 
taste  death  until  they  have  seen  the  king- 
dom of  God  come  with  "power."  It  was 
yet  future.  Mark,  xv,  43.  Joseph  of  Ari- 
noathea  waited  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  af- 
ter the  death  of  Jesus."  It  was  yet  future. 
"When  did  it  come  with  power?  Luke,  xxiv, 
49;  "Behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my 
fathei  upon  you."  Still  future.  "Tarry  ye  in 
Jerusalem  till  ye  are  endued  with  power 
from  on  high."  The  power  that  was  to 
usher  in  the  kingdom,  the  church,  was  yet 
future.  Acts,  i,  8.  "You  shall  receive  power 
after  the  Holy  Spirit  has  come  upon  you." 
The  power  that  was  to  usher  in  the  king- 
dom, the  church  was  future,  just  a  few  mo- 
menta before  the  ascension  of  Jesus.  The 


Holy  Spirit  fell  with  power  upon  the  apos- 
tles on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  They  were 
endued  with  power.  The  kingdom  came 
with  power,  was  ushered  in  with  power 
then,  and  not  till  then.  This  was  the  be- 
ginning of  the  kingdom  in  fact.  Peter  de- 
clares :  Acts,  xiv:  "The  Holy  Spirit  fell  on 
us  at  the  beginning."  The  beginning  of  the 
kingdom,  the  church.  My  opponent  quotes 
"Thelawand  the  prophets,  were  until  John, 
but  now  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is 
preached."  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
preached  until  John,  now  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  preached.  Preached,  how? 
That  it  is  at  hand,  approaching.  Not  that 
it  is  in  existence  and  John  in  it.  "The  least 
in  the  kingdom  is  greater  than  John."  John 
was  not  in  the  kingdom.  "The  kingdom  of 
God  (in  preaching  in  promise)  is  among 
you,"  not  in  fact  for  it  had  not  come.  He 
has  found  an  Israelite  Congregational  Na- 
tional Assembly  in  the  wilderness,  but  no 
church  of  Christ,  for  Jesus  said  just  before 
his  death  that  it  had  not  come  and  was  yet 
to  be  built.  The  Israelites  were  baptized, 
into  Moses  and  not  into  Christ.  They  re- 
ceived the  revelations  that  his  Spirit  gave 
them.  Not  that  they  were  in  the  church  of 
Christ  but  that  Christ  was  yet  to  come. 
He  asserts  that  John's  law  was  the  gospel ; 
John  preached  the  law  of  Christ.  John 
preached  that  the  church  or  kingdom  Con- 
trolled by  the  law  of  Christ  was  yet  future. 
If  my  opponent  will  exercise  common  sense 
and  divide  the  word  correctly  and  dis- 
tinguish between  the  gospel  in  promise,  in 
process  of  development,  and  accomplished 
fact;  between  the  kingdom  in  promise,  in 
process  of  formation,  and  the  kingdom  in- 
augurated, set  up.  he  will  avoid  such  flat 
contradictions  of  tne  word  of  God.  My  po- 
sition agrees  with  all  clear  passages  of  the 
word,  and  with  a  sensible  interpretation  of 
other  passages.  His  interpretation  flatly 
contradicts  the  only  possible  meaning  the 
passages  I  quote  can  have. 

Was  the  Comforter  to  the  apostles  alone? 
Jesus  was  to  leave  the  apostles  and  the 
Comforter  was  to  take  His  place  with  the 
apostles.  Jesus  does  not  leave  men  now 
and  the  Comforter  does  not  come  instead  of 
Jesus  and  take  the  place  of  Jesus,  the  place 
Jesus  has  occupied  with  men  now.  He  was 
to  recall  to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  what 
Jesus  had  said  to  the  apostles.  He  never 
called  to  the  mind  of  any  person  what 
Jesus  had  said  to  them  except  in  the  case 
of  the  apostles.  Does  the  Holy  Spirit  recall 
to  the  minds  of  Mormon  apostles  what 
Jesus  in  person  has  said  to  such  Mormon 
apostles?  The  idea  of  a  Mormon  claiming 
that  promise  is  as  absurd  as  for  him  to 
claim  the  promise  of  Jesus  that  He  would 
meet  the  apostles  in  Galilee  after  His 
resurrection.  One  is  sis  personal  to  the 
apostles  as  the  ofh'T.  My  opponent  quotes 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


259 


Acts,  viii.  He  does  net  have  intelligence  to 
see  that  it  is  fatal  to  his  position.  The 
miraculous  power  of  tna  Spirit  could  not  be 
'enjoyed  by  the  Samaritans  until  an  apostle 
had  laid  hands  on  them.  Jiist  what  we  claim. 
They  had  been  baptized.  Will  he  tell  us 
whe'ther  they  had  been  born  of  God,  born  of 
water  and  of  Spirit  before  the  apostles  laid 
hands  on  them?  If  not,  how  could  they 
receive  what  sinners  cannot  receive?  If 
they  were  children  of  God  they  had  been 
born  of  God,  of  water  and  the  Spirit  before 
receiving  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  laying  on 
of  an  apostle's  hands.  They  had  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Spirit  before  receiving 
this  miraculous  power.  Will  my  opponent 
be  man  enough  to  answer  these  questions 
and  cease  playing  the  coward  as  he  has  so 
far  done. 

We  repeat  again  that  my  opponent  does 
not  seem  to  be  able  to  distinguish  between 
baptized  ft;y  one  Spirit,  that  is,  by  the  com- 
mand of  one  Spirit,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
baptized  in  one  Spi  i  it  on  the  other.  Between 
baptism  A.y  the  Spirit  and  baptism  in  the 
Spirit.  He  confounds  also  "  Born  of  the 
Spirit,"  and  "  baptism  in  the  Spirit."  He 
confounds  "baptism  in  the  Spirit,"  and 
being  "  begotten  by  the  Spirit."  There  is 
no  use  in  arguing  with  one  so  obtuse  or  so 
perverse.  He  says  Christ  does  not  speak 
to  the  "  Disciples."  He  speaks  to  us  in  the 
New  Testament,  not  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
or  any  other  Mormon  fraud.  By  His  chosen 
apostles,  and  not  by  Mormon  impostors. 
He  wants  to  know  when  there  was  a  Church 
of  Christ  without  miraculous  powers  in  it. 
If  he  will  read  Eph.  iv.  he  will  learn  that 
miracles  were  to  exist  until  the  Church  was 
completed.  If  be  will  read  I.  Cor.  xii.  and 
xiii.  he  will  read  God's  description  of  the 
perfect  Church,  and  God's  declaration  that 
miraculous  power  should  cease  out  of  the 
Church  before  it  became  perfect,  and  when 
it  became  perfect.  There  is  the  Church 
without  miraculous  powers  :  A  perfect 
Church.  The  Church  with  such  powers 
was  imperfect,  in  its  childhood.  Will  he 
dare  to  notice  that? 

We  have  Christ  in  our  Church,  not  as  a 
silent  partner  as  Kelley  says.  He  speaks 
to  us  in  His  word,  the  New  Testament,  not 
in  that  fraud,  the  Hook  of  Mormon.  He 
speaks  to  us  in  His  chosen  apostles,  not  by 
Mormon  impostors.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  in 
our  Church.  He  speaks  to  us  in  the  New 
Testament,  not  in  that  clumsy,  lying  fabri- 
cation, the  Book  of  Mormon.  He  speaks  to 
us  ihroiiirh  the  apostles  He  inspired,  and 
Hoi  in  the  lies  of  Mormon  impostors.  My 
opponent  blunders  over  the  immersion  in 
the  Spirit.  Spirit  alone  can  be  immersed 
inspirit.  Spirit  alone  immersed  Spirit. 
The  spirits  of  tlie  apostles  were  immersed 
in  the  i-ower  of  the.  Spirit  of  God.  The 
Holy  Spirit  was  not  poured  out  as  a  bucket 
of  waier  or  a  dish  of  (in-  on  the  persons  of 
the  apostles.  Such  is  the  gross  materialism 
of  Momionisrn.  lie  re-h.-ishe*  Hebrew  vi. 
It  is  simply  a  fact  that  this  letter  was 
written  to  Hebrews  who  .-limy  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  regarded  it  as  better  than 


the  Gospel.  It  was  written  to  prove  that 
the  law  of  Moses  was  only  a  preparation  for 
the  Gospel.  That  they  should  leave  the 
law  of  Moses  and  accept  the  Gospel.  That 
the  law  of  Moses  was  their  schoolmaster,  to 
teach  them  the  first  principles  and  lead 
them  to  Christ.  The  dead  works  were 
works  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Are  works  of 
the  law  of  Christ  dead  works?  Faith 
towards  God  must  be  now  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  The  baptisms  were  the  bathings 
of  the  law  of  Moses,  for  there  is  but  one 
baptism  in  the  Gospel.  The  laying  on  of 
hands  was  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  the 
Mosaic  ritual.  The  resurrection  was  the 
Israelite  idea.  They  were  to  leave  all  this 
and  take  the  Gospel  in  its  stead. 

But  these  persons  had  received  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Yes,  persons  can  accept  the  Gospel 
and  receive  the  Holy  Sprit,  and  than  go 
back  to  beggarly  elements.  Persons  have 
done  so  in  accepting  Mormonism.  Ho  says 
we  have  no  baptism  in  the  Spirit.  No,  for 
the  word  of  God  declares  that  there  were 
but  two  occasions  of  that  baptiojn.  &ud  that 
it  was  never  bestowed  on  any  ottur  occa- 
sions and  never  will  be.  He  h-M  no  baptism 
in  the  Spirit  either.  He  hrjs  u  Mormon 
vagary  as  nnscriptural  as  Paj»il  mass.  We 
have  laying  on  of  hands  to  sol  persons  apart 
to  a  work,  but  not  to  import  miraculous 
power.  Only  an  apostle coind  do  that.  His 
laying  on  of  hands  is  as  gro/t  a,  farce  as  the 
Papal  pretense  to  chango  the  bread  and 
wine  into  the  flesh  and  Mood  of  Christ. 
Will  my  opponent  be  rut,n  enough,  play 
that  he  is  man  enough,  to  answer  these 
questions.  Is  there  but  jc.e  baptism  in  the 
church?  Is  that  baptijfj  water  baptism? 
Or  is  it  Spirit  baptism  ?  Do  you  insult  com- 
mon sense  by  saying  tt.r.t  two  baptisms  are 
one  baptism  ?  Or  do  ycu  give  the  lie  direct 
to  the  Spirit  of  God  and  say  there  is  more 
than  one  baptism  in  the  church  ?  Come,  do 
not  play  the  coward  any  longer,  but  answer 
like  a  man,  if  you  can  play  man  long  enough 
to  do  so. 

We  believe  and  teach,  that  all  obedient 
believers  receive  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  earnest 
of  an  inheritance.  We  receive  it  through 
faith,  belief  of  God's  word,  and  not  by  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  any  Mormon  Im- 
postor. We  receive  it  in  God's  appointed 
way;  not  in  the  lying  farce  concocted  by 
Sidney  Rigdon.  Our  overseers  are  made  by 
tiie  Holy  Spirit,  by  his  word,  by  his  law, 
and  not  by  mummeries  of  Mormon  Impos- 
ture. He  calls  my  attention  to  the  laying 
on  of  hands  in  Acts  xiii.  He  asserts  that 
hands  were  laid  on  Paul  and  Barnabas  by 
persons  not  apostles;  very  true.  That  it 
was  to  impart  the  miraculous  power  of  the 
Holv  Spirit;  it  was  not.  It  was  to  separate 
them  to  the  work  of  preaching.  To  set  them 
apart  to  the  work  to  which  the  Spirit  called 
them.  It  could  not  be  to  impart  the  Holy 
Spirit,  either  the  ordinary  indwelling  or  the 
miraculous  power,  for  Paul  and  Barnabas 
had  both.  Acts  xii,  24.  Long  before  this 
I',  ina  lias  was  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Lay- 
ing on  hands  was  not  to  give  the  Spirit  to 


260 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


him.  Acts  ix,  17.  Ananias  said  to  Saul, 
"Brother  Saul,  the  Lord  has  sent  me  that 
you  might  he  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit," 
and  he  laid  his  hands  on  him.  It  was  not 
to  impart  the  Holy  Spirit  to  Saul,  for  he  was 
full  of  the  Spirit  long  before.  It  was  merely 
to  separate  to  a  work,  set  apart  to  preaching. 
It  imparted  no  authority,  no  miraculous 
power. 

Kelley  says,  we  say  converts  cannot  hear 
from  God.  We  say  unless  they  have  heard 
from  God  in  his  word  they  cannot  be  con- 
verted. We  say,  unless  they  have  heard 
from  God  in  his  word  they  cannot  be  Chris- 
tians. We  have  them*  hear  from  God 
through  his  Son  and  his  word,  and  not 
through  Joe  Smith  and  Mormon  impostors. 

We  will  now  give  him  our  authority  for 
preaching,  organizing  churches,  and  admin- 
istering ordinances.  I  Peter,  ii,  5 :  "  Ye,  as 
lively  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house, 
a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  spiritual  sacrifices 
acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ:  but  ye 
are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood, 
a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,  that  you 
should  show  forth  the  praises  of  him  that 
has  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  mar- 
vellous light."  Every  obedient  child  of 
God  is  by  his  faith  and  obedience  constitu- 
ted by  Almighty  God,  not  by  the  hands  of 
Mormon  impostors,  a  king,  a  priest,  a  royal 
priest.  Here  is  the  authority,  and  all  are 
equal  in  this  priesthood  and  royal  power. 
Revelations  i,  5:  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us 
and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood,  and  has  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  God."  All  who  have  been  pardoned, 
washed  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  are  made  by 
that  act  kings  and  priests  unto  God.  Here 
is  where  we  get  our  authority  :  not  from  a 
pretended  revelation,  the  farce  narrated  by 
Joe  Smith  when  he  tells  us  that  he  baptized 
Oliver  Cowdery  and  Cowdery  prophecied, 
and  Cowdery  baptized  him  and  he  prophe- 
cied. Our  authority  is  from  God;  he  has 
made  us,  when  he  pardoned  us,  kings, 
priests,  a  royal  priesthood.  We  can  do  all 
that  kings  and  priests  of  God  can  do.  That 
was  Alexander  Campbell's  authority.  He 
was  a  king,  a  priest  unto  God,  and  he  had 
divine  authority  from  God  and  not  from 
Impostor  Joe  Smith  to  do  what  he  did. 

We  will  now  examine  his  claim  to  be 
called  of  God  as  was  Aaron.  If  I  do  not 
expose  the  ineffable  blasphemy  of  that  im- 
pudent claim,  I  will  yield  the  discussion. 
Beginning  with  Hebrews  iv,  14,  we  read: 

"Having  then  a  great  high-priest  who  has  passed 
through  the  Heavens.  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God.  let  us 
hold  fust  our  confession.  For  we  havenpi  a  high -priest 
that  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  in- 
firmities, but  <>ne  that  has'been  tried  at  all  points  like  as 
we,  yet  wiihout  sin.  Let  us  therefore <1  raw  m>ar  with 
bold'ucss  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  find  grace 
to  help  us  in  every  time  of  need." 

Observe  it  is  Christ  that  is  the  great 
high-priest. 

"  For  every  hfgh-prlest  taken  from  among  men  is 
ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  that  he 
may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  lor  sins;  who  can 
have  compassion  on  the  ignorant  and  them  that  are  i-ut 
of  the  way,  for  he  himself  is  also  compassed  with  in- 
firmity. And  by  reason  thereof  he  ought,  as  for  the 
people  so  also  for  himself,  to  offer  for  sin.  And  no  man 
tnkeih  his  power." 


What  power?  Acting  as  high  priest, 
offering  sacrifice  for  the  people, — 

"But  he  that  was  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron.  So 
also  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  a  high 
priest,  but  he  that  said  unto  him  (unto  whom?  Unto 
all  Mormon  impostors?  No.  unto  Christ),  "Thou  art 
my  Son :  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  And  he 
saith  in  another  place  (to  Mormon  impostors?  No,  to 
Christ),  "I  hou  art  a  priest  forever,  after  the  order  of 
Melclmedek." 

Then  Christ  is  the  only  one  who  was  called 
to  the  high  priesthood  as  Aaron  was.  Aaron 
was  called  by  the  voice  of  God  to  the  posi- 
tion of  first  high  priest  of  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood. Christ  was  called  to  the  Mek-hizedek 
priesthood  by  the  voice  of  God  as  Aaron 
was,  and  Christ  alone.  He  had  no  predeces- 
sor in  his  office  of  high  priest,  and  he  has  no 
successor.  Measure,  if  you  can,  the  blas- 
phemy of  Kelley  and  other  Mormon  impos- 
tors claiming  to  be  called  as  Christ  was 
called,  as  Aaron  was  called.  Placing  them- 
selves on  an  equality  with  the  Son  of  God. 
Christ  alone  was  called  as  Aaron  was. 

WTe  are  called  to  be  kings  and  priests  unto 
God  as  the  persons  Peter  addressed  were 
called,  by  the  obedience  of  faith.  We  were 
made  kings  and  priests  unto  God  when 
Christ  washed  us  from  sin.  As  kings  and 
priests  made  by  Almighty  God  and  not  by 
Joe  Smith  or  Mormon  impostors,  we  have 
divine  authority  for  all,  and  every  act  a 
king  and  a  priest  unto  God  can  perform. 
We  lay  hands  on  some  of  our  kings  and 
priests  who  have  the  qualifications  that  the 
law  of  God  requires,  not  to  impart  miracu- 
lous power,  not  to  impart  authority,  for 
they  have  already  as  kings  and  priests  unto 
God  received  the  authority  from  the  Al- 
mighty; but  to  set  them  apart  to  a  certain 
work.  All  are  equal  in  authority,  but  they 
are  set  apart  to  a  certain  work.  Peter  de- 
clares in  II  Peter,  i,3:  "God's  divine  power 
has  given  to  us" — the  apostle  and  the  Chris- 
tians of  his  day  "all  things  that  pertain  to 
life  and  godHness  toroiigh  the  knowledge 
of  him  that  has  called  us" — the  apostle 
and  all  Christian*  in  hip  day— "to  glory  and 
virtue."  Here  the  apostle  declares  that  all 
things  that  perta;u  lo  life  and  godliness  had 
already  been  given,  and  through  knowl- 
edge, 'through  the  truth  revealed.  If  all 
things  had  already  been  given  all  that  per- 
tain to  life  and  godliness,  Mormon  revela- 
tions are  humbugs  and  impostures.  I  will 
stake  the  issue  of  the  debate  on  that  one 
passage.  Will  my  opponent  read  it  and 
tell  us  where  his  Mormonism  comes  in. 

IS  CAMI'BELLISM   THE   OKIOIN   OF  MORMON- 
ISM? 

The  statement  is  often  made  as  a  reproach 
to  the  Disciples  that  Campheilism  is  the 
parentof  Mormonism.  Mormonism  isCamp- 
bellism  gone  to  seed.  We  propose  to  vindi- 
cate the  Disciples  from  such  a  reproayh. 
While  it  is  true  that  there  are  things  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon  that  no  one  but  a  Di«H|.le 

Ereacher  would  have  written  at  the  time  the 
ook  appeared  ;  and  that  there  are  one  or 
two  features  in  which  the  Disciples  and  Mor- 
mons agree  ih  differing  from  the  orthodox 
religious  world;  it  is  also  as  true  that  it 
was  not  what  Rigdou  took  from  the  Disci- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


261 


pies  that  gave  origin  to  Mormonism.  On 
the  contrary,  it  was  the  points  on  which  he 
differed  from  the  Disciples  that  gave  rise  to 
Mormon  ism.  Had  Sydney  Rigdon  accepted 
all  of  the  teaching  of  the  Disciples,  and  had 
he  been  loyal  to  them,  the  Book  of  Mormon 
and  Mormonism  would  never  have  been 
•dreamed  of  by  him.  The  vital  difference  be- 
tween the  Disciples  and  the  so-called  ortho- 
dox world  is  the  dogma  that  the  orthodox  re- 
ligious world  make  the  central  idea  of  their 
teaching,  the  dogma  that  in  the  conviction 
and  conversion  of  the  sinner,  and  in  the 
comforting  and  sanctification  of  the  saint 
the  Holy  Spirit  exerts  a  direct  and  immedi- 
ate influence,  distinct  and  different  from, 
mid  in  addition  to  any  that  he  exerts  through 
the  truth,  that  he  has  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Some  regard  this  influence  as  mirac- 
ulous. Others  say  that  it  is  not  miraculous. 
The  Disciples  teach  that  all  direct  and  im- 
mediate influence  was  miraculous,  was  not, 
and  could  not  bea  moral  influence,  and  had 
not  one  particle  of  moral  influence  on  the 
party  influenced.  Its  work  was  to  inspire, 
to  reveal  truth,  to  work  miracles,  and  it  can 
form  no  part  of  conviction,  conversion  and 
sanctification.  They  teach  that  all  the  moral 
power  that  an  intelligence,  like  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  exert  on  another  intelligence  like 
man's  spirit,  is  resident  in  ideas,  moral  influ- 
ences, presented  to  the  spirit  influenced  in 
words  or  acts.  They  teach  that  conviction, 
conversion  and  sauctiflcation  are  accom- 
plished by  moral  power  alone,  resident  in 
truth  and  acts.  They  believe  the  Bible  de- 
clarations that  "the  gospel  is  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  to  all  who  believe."  II 
Peter,  i.  "Divine  power  has  granted  unto  us 
all  things  that  pertain  unto  life  and  godli- 
ness through  knowledge."  That  all  "men 
are  begotleu  by  the  word  of  truth."  That 
ruen  are  sanctified  by  God's  word  as  Jesus 
declares  They  reject  all  direct  and  immedi- 
ate influence  of  the  Spirit  in  conviction, 
conversion  and  sanctification,  for  such  influ- 
ence was  all  miraculous,  and  it  did  not  and 
could  not  produce  one  particle  of  moral  in- 
fluence or  change.  Because  the  Bible  never 
ascribes  one  im  tance  or  particle  of  conver- 
sion to  such  direct  influence.  Because  it 
invariably  ascribes  it  to  the  gospel  the  word 
of  God,  the  truth.  Such  is  the  great  differ- 
ence between  disciples  and  others. 

Sidney  Rigdon  brought  from  the  Baptists 
to  the  Disciples  and  agreed  with  the  Disci- 
ples in  :  I.  Immersion  alone  is  baptism. 
II.  Penitent  believers  alone  are  scriptural 
subjects  of  baptism. 

He  accepted  from  the  Disciples  :  I.  Rev- 
elation alone  should  be  the  creed  of  Christ- 
tians.  II.  The  religious  world  had  de- 
parted from  the  apostolic  Christianity  and 
should  return  to  it.  III.  What  are  called 
"first  priuciples  "  by  the  Disciples. 
IV.  Baptism  is  unto  the  remission  of  sins. 

Not  one  of  these  would  have  even  hinted 
the  Book  of  Mormon  or  Mormonism.  He 
brought  from  the  Baptists  and  never  agreed 
with  the  Disciples.  I.  Opposition  to  secret 
societies.  That  is  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
It  is  full  of  it.  II.  The  orthodox  idea  of  a 


direct,  immediate  and  miraculous  influence 
of  the  Spirit  in -conversion.  While  a  Dis- 
ciple preacher  he  would  often  get  so  excited 
in  his  preaching,  as  to  have  whai  is  called 
"  the  power,"  and  often  claimed  that  he 
had  visions  and  revelations  in  that  state. 
He  was  always  extravagant  in  his  preach- 
ing, and  had  much  trouble  and  difference 
with  the  Disciples  over  this  idea.  He  tried 
to  get  the  Disciples  to  accept  this  idea,  and 
that  a  full  restoration  of  apostolic  Chris- 
tianity must  restore  inspiration,  spiritual 
gifts,  and  revelations.  The  orthodox  idea 
of  direct  and  miraculous  influence  of  the 
Spirit  that  he  retained  was  simply  this 
claim  of  Rigdon,  the  idea  that  was  Rigdon'3 
special  hobby,  and  that  was  rejected  by 
the  Disciples.  He  brought  from  the  Bap- 
tists the  orthodox  idea  of  a  direct  and  im- 
mediate influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  ad- 
dition to  and  distinct  from  any  influence 
that  he  exerts  through  the  truth.  Like 
all  who  believe  this  notion,  he  regarded  it 
as  the  sum  and  substance  of  religion  Ha 
was  consistent  and  logical,  however,  and 
the  orthodox  world  are  not.  He  asserted, 
and  truthfully,  that  this  direct  and  imme- 
diate influence  ever  had  been  and  ever 
must  be  miraculous  and  attended  with  mi- 
raculous power,  inspiration  and  revelation. 
He  came  into  the  Restoration  with  that 
hobby  and  with  the  intention  to  engraft  it 
on  to  the  movement,  and  when  he  had 
gotten  the  Disciples  to  accept  it,  he  could 
then  get  them  to  accept  new  revelations,  and 
bring  forward  his  "Golden  Bible"  that  he 
had  fabricated  out  of  Spaulding's  "Manu- 
script Found,"  and  make  of  the  Restoration 
what  Mormonism  now  is. 

Accordingly  he  was  constantly  talking 
and  preaching  that  a  full  return  to  apostolic 
Christianity  must  include  a  restoration  of 
the  spiritual  gifts,  mirculous  powers,  the 
inspirations  and  revelations  of  the  apostolic 
age.  He  had  large  numbers  of  the  congre- 
gation, for  which  he  preached  indoctrinated 
with  these  ideas,  and  some  had  adopted  his 
idea  of  community  of  goods  and  feet 
washing.  These  he  had  prepared  for  Mor- 
monism, and  when  he  pretended  to  be  con- 
verted to  Mormonism  that  he  himself  had 
originated,  and  had  used  Smith  as  a  tool  to 
publish  for  him,  these  persons  who  had 
accepted  his  hobbies  went  with  him,  and 
this  accounts  for  the  wonderful  rapidity 
with  which  converts  were  made  to  Mor- 
monism in  the  churches  where  he  had 
preached,  and  had  great  influence.  His 
teaching  in  regard  to  new  revelations  led 
them  to  expect  such  revelations  and  they 
were  ready  to  accept  the  Book  of  Mormon 
as  a  revelation.  Here  again  the  admirable 
scri  ptural  knowledge  and  admirable  sense  of 
the  Campbells  saved  the  Restoration  from 
shipwreck,  as  it  did  in  regard  to  his  millen- 
nial vagaries  and  the  community  of  goods. 
The  long  and  unanswerable  series  of  articles 
on  the  Holy  Spirit  in  "Christianity  Re-  • 
stored,"  clearly  separated,  the  miraculous 
and  extraordinary  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
in  inspiration,  revelations  and  miracles, 
which  was  the  direct  and  immediate  in- 


262 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


fluence  of  the  Spirit,  from  the  ordinary 
influence  which  was  only  through  the 
truth.  These  articles  showed  that  this 
dir<ct  and  immediate  influence  was  for 
a  definite  purpose — the  completion  of 
revelation — the  word  of  God,  and  that 
the  scriptures  taught  that  it  ceased  with 
that  work.  That  the  only  power  the  Holy 
Spirit  exerts  in  conviction,  conversion  and 
sanctification  is  by  and  through  the  truth 
he  has  revealed  in  the  scriptures,  and  that 
such  influence  is  the  only  moral  influence 
He  can  exert. 

The  rejection  of  this  special  hobby  of  Rig- 
don  that  he  brought  into  the  Restoration 
from  the  Baptists  and  the  orthodox  relig- 
ious world,  and  through  which  he  hoped  to 
get.  the  Disciples  to  accept  his  "Golden 
Bible  "  and  lead  them  off  into  what  is  now 
Mormonism,  drove  him  from  the  Restora- 
tion. It  is  often  said  that  "  Carapbellism  is 
the  parent  of  Mormonism — that  it  is  Camp- 
bellism  gone  to  seed."  We  have  freely 
stated  just  what  Rigdon  took  into  Mormon- 
ism  from  the  Restoration.  Because  he  ac- 
cepted certain  truths  we  teach,  no  more 
proves  that  we  are  responsible  for  Mormon- 
ism, or  that  our  teachings  logically  lead  to 
Mormonism,  than  the  fact  that  Mormonism 
accepts  many  of  the  teachings  of  the  Bible 
proves  that  the  Bible  is  responsible  for 
Mormon  ism,  or  that  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  logically  lead  to  Mormouisrn. 

The  truth  is  that  our  clear,  common-sense 
scriptural  teaching  that  the  direct  and  im- 
mediate influence  of  the  Spirit  was  miracu- 
lous and  ceased  with  miracles,  and  that 
the  only  influence  that  the  Spirit  exerts 
now  is  through  the  truth  he  has  revealed, 
the  only  moral  influence  he  can  exert,  is 
utterly  fatal  to  the  central  idea  of  Mormon- 
ism, and  the  origin  of  everything  that  is 
peculiar  to  the  system,  the  direct  and  mi- 
racuious  influence  of  the  Spirit,  in  inspira- 
tion and  revelations.  It  was  this  truth  that 
led  the  Disciples  to  reject  Rigdon's  idea  of 
a  restoration  of  miraculous  oowers.  Had 
they  believed  the  orthodox  idea  of  a  direct 
and*  immediate  influence,  in  addition  to 
and  distinct  from  the  influence  through  the 
truth,  and  been  as  logical  and  consistent  in 
carrying  out  the  idea  as  they  were  in  all 
else|  they  would  have  said  "such  influence 
in  miraculous,"  and  accepted  his  idea  of 
restoration  of  miraculous  power.  Because 
they  rejected  the  orthodox  idea  of  direct 
ami  immediate  in^ue-jce,  they  rejected  his 
hobby  ol  restoration  of  miraculous  powers. 
No  orthodox  church  could  have  rejected 
his  hobby  if  *b<9.y  were  consistent  with  their 


belief  of  a  direct  and  immediate  influence 
of  the  Spirit,  for  such  influence  must  be 
miraculous,  and  if  really  present  be  at- 
tended with  miracles. 

Rigdon  took  from  the  orthodox  world  this 
idea,  the  key  note  of  orthodoxy,  the  direct 
and  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit,  in 
addition  to  and  distinct  from  any  that  he 
exerted  through  the  truth.  From  the  Meth- 
odists he  took  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Having  taken  these  ideas  from  the 
religious,  orthodox  world,  Rigdon  was  con- 
sistent and  logical  and  scriptural  in  assert- 
ing that  such  influence  was  miraculous,  and 
when  really  present  attended  with  miracu- 
lous powers,  inspiration  and  revelations. 

Mormonism  agrees  with  the  orthodox 
religious  world  in  claiming  this  direct  and 
immediate  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
addition  to,  and  distinct  and  different  from, 
any  influence  that  he  exerts  through  the 
truth.  It  does  not  illogically  stop  with 
making  the  claim  and  refusing  to  claim  the 
necessary  effects  of  such  a  cause,  miraculous 
powers,  inspiration  and  revelations  Mor- 
monism claims,  and  has  every  truth  o 
scriptural  teaching  and  all  common  sense  to 
sustain  it,  that  such  influence  was  miracu- 
lous, and  as  necessarily  attended  by  mira- 
cles as  the  effect  must  attend  the  cause. 
Miracles  were  what  distinguished  th 
miraculous  influence,  which  WHS  direct  and 
immediate,  from  the  ordinary  influence  that 
was  only  through  the  the  truth.  Claiming 
the  cause  Mormonism  is  logical,  scriptural 
and  in  accordance  with  common  sense  in 
claiming  the  effect,  miracles. 

Mormonism  is  logical  and  in  accordance 
with  common  sense  and  the  Scriptures  in 
claiming  all  the  spiritual  gifts  that  existed 
in  the  apostolic  church,  when  it  claims  their 
cause — the  direct  and  immediate  influence 
of  the  Spirit.  Orthodoxy  is  illogical  in 
claiming  the  cause,  and  refusing  to  claim 
the  necessary  effect,  that  can  no  more  be 
separated  from  the  cause  than  the  falling 
of  unsupported  bodies  can  be  separated  from 
the  law  of  gravitation. 

Sometimes  in  its  claim  of  special  call  to 
preach,  miraculous  evidence  of  conversion, 
that  regeneration  is  a  miracle,  that  men 
preach  as  the  spirit  gives  them  utterance 
and  in  revival,  camp  meeting,  holiness,  and 
sanctiflcation  extravagances,  in  miraculous 
providences  and  answers  to  prayer,  ortho- 
doxy actually  claims  miraculous  pawer,  and 
absurdly  denounces  the  Mormon  claim  to 
miraculous  power  and  revelations  as  un- 
scriptural  and  absurd. 


Til!-;  miADJJN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATK. 


MR.   KELLEY'S   FIFTH    SPEECH. 


GENTT,RMENT  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
{tENTLicMKN  : — When  my  time  was  called 
last,  night  I  was  making  an  argument  upon 
the  authority  of  the  minister,  citing  John 
1:5.  "There  was  a  man  sent  from  God 
whose  name  was  John."  Jesus  also  con- 
stantly urged  that  he  did  not  come  to  do 
his  own  will  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
him.  That  his  Father  had  sent  him.  "My 
commandments  are  not  mine  but  his  that 
aent  me." 

These  men  were  eent  by  the  God  of 
heaven  to  establish  his  church  and  reveal 
his  will  to  men  on  earth.  Had  they  not 
been  sent,  they  never  would  have  assumed 
to  be  teachers.  But  they  had  a  message 
because  the  Lord  had  sent  them  ;  and  they 
said,  "Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand."  Paul  recognizing  the  necessity 
of  being  "sent"  before  starting  out  with 
tiiliiiHS,  says,  "How  shall  they  preach  ex- 
cept they  be  sent."  Rom.  10.  In  accord- 
ance with  this,  Jesus  said  to  his  apostles, 
"As  my  Father  sent  me,  so  send  I  you." 
"Whosoever  receiveth  you,  receiveth  me, 
and  he  that  receiveth  me,  receiveth  him 
that  sent  me."  Here  we  have  the  authori- 
tative right  to  minister,  extending  from 
he«ven  to  earth,  and  that  right  is  either 
vested  in  God's  minister,  or  he  has  no 
right  to  act.  "How  shall  they  preach  ex- 
cept they  be  sent?"  Sent  of  God.  When 
Mr.  Campbell  and  party  commenced  the 
work  of  church  building,  (restoring  Chris- 
tianity), upon  the  "Bible,  and  Biblealone," 
the  first  thing  that  stared  them  in  the  face 
was,  by  what  authority  shall  we  act?  Mr. 
Campbell  did  not  believe  that  either  the 
Catholics  or  Protestants  had  any  authority, 
i.  e.,  transmitted  authority,  i  hat  which  had 
come  down  from  the  apostles'  times.  He 
did  not  believe  that  God,  or  angels  or  the 
Holy  Ghost  could  say  anything;  that  is 
he  held  that  they  had  had  their  say. 

So  they  met  together,  says  Mr.  Stone,  to 
act  |by  common  consent,  and  with  the  in- 
tention of  only  doing  that  which  the  Bible 
authorized  them  to  do.  The  question  of 
baptizing  came  up  ;  but  who  has  authority 
to  baptize,  was  the  problem  of  problems. 
They  consulted  together  on  the  ''Bible 
alone,"  and  alone  they  were.  Neither  God, 
nor  angels,  nor  the  Holy  Ghost  could  do 
anything  for  them,  for  they  did  not  believe 
that  these  could.  They  had  no  faith.  They 
believed  that  these  things  were  formerly 
in  the  church,  but  not  now.  Here  they  are 
gathered  together.  It  is  no  common  occur- 
rence. The  time  of  the  great  restoration 
has  come,  but  how  it  was  found  out  is  not 
told — and  the  birth  of  the  restored  church 
is  about  to  take  place.  All  is  expectation 
and  anxiety.  In  the  midst  of  the  pain  and 
anguish  to  bring  it  forth,  there  is  an  un- 


yielding difficulty  standing  in  the  wny.  It 
'is  this:  Who  shall  baptize  the  fir>f  one. 
They  pause!  At  last  a  thought  struck  one 
of  them.  He  was  ready  to  cut  the  goruian 
knot.  Said  he,  "//"  we  have  authority  to 
preach  we  have  authority  to  baptize."  That 
was  the  electric  bolt.  They  thought  they 
had  it,  and  they  went  to  work;  minister* 
baptized  ministers,  and  then  the  people. 
So  the  restoration  commenced  with  all  the 
authority  of  an  IF.  When  the  church  of 
Christ  was  established  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  it  took  a  divine  commission,  a 
word  from  heaven,  the  ministering  of  angels 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
apostles  and  prophets  to  set  it  up;  but  af- 
ter the  dark  day  of  apostacy,  and  the 
church  of  God  could  not  be  found  on  earth, 
Mr.  Campbell,  and  Mr  Stone  and  Mr.  Scott 
and  some  others  restored  it  over  in  Ken- 
tucky in  all  its  splendor,  without  a  word 
from  heaven,  from  the  Son,  Holy  Spirit,  or 
angels,  apostles  or  prophets,  while  stand- 
ing on  the  "Bible  alone, "and  restored  it  on 
the  most  doubtful  of  words,  if.  The  only 
wonder  is  that  it  has  not  taken  the  world 
before  this  time.  From  that  time  to  this 
they  hold  that  one  person  has  just  as  good 
a  right  to  preach  and  baptize  as  another. 
That  ordination  even  amounts  to  nothing; 
and  upon  that  ground  I  understand  that 
my  opponent  refused  to  let  any  of  the 
brethren  in  this  wonderful  restoration  lay 
hands  on  him,  down  at  Carbondale  a  few 
years  ago.  Am  I  not  correct?  Or  have  you 
changed  your  mind  upon  this  since  you  put 
so  many  of  your  preachers  to  rout  on  this  at 
Carbondale'  111.?  He,  like  all  those  who 
ministered  at  the  birth  of  this  institution, 
was  already  authorized.  That  is  if,  and  if. 
— Their  is  a  great  deal  of  certainty  in  their 
theory  of  religion  (?) 

The  Disciples  say  they  built  fheirChurch 
on  "The  Bible  and  Bible  alone."  But 
Jesus  Christ  built  Hi*  upon  a  different 
foundation  altogether.  Seethe  following: 
"  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him. 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar  Jona,  for  flesh 
and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee, 
[that  I  am  the  Christ]  but  my  Father  which 
is  in  Ht-aven.  And  I  say  also  unto  thee, 
that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  ock  I 
will  build  my  Church,  and  thegatesof  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it."  "  Upon  this 
rock"  says  Jesus,  "I  will  build  my  Church." 
Upon  what  rock?  Upon  the  Bible  and 
Biblealone?  Not  upon  that,  but  upon  the 
rock  of  revealing,  the  means  and  power  of 
obtaining  the  knowledge  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God.  This  communication 
from  the  father  is  that  which  antedates  all 
gospel  preaching,  and  is  the  inspiration 
and  rock  upon  which  the  whole  Christian 
institution  rests.  Hence  Jesus  says, 


20.4 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


•'when  he,  the  Holy  Ghost,  Is  come,  he 
will  testify  of  me."  "He  will  take  of  the 
things  of  the  Father  and  show  them  unto 
you." 

The  whole  superstructure  was  to  partake 
of  the  essence  of  the  Rock  upon  which  the 
foundation  rested  ;  hence,  Paul  says,  the 
church  was.a  "habitation  of  God  through 
theSpirit."  Thefoundation  was  laid  by  the 
declared  fact  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ ;  hence 
it  is  written:  "Other  foundation  can  no 
man  lay,  than  that  is  laid  which  is  Jesus 
Christ."  And  again  it  is  declared,  "Are 
built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner  stone.  In  whom  all  the 
building  fitly  framed  together,  groweth 
unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord.  In  whom 
ye  are  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of 
God  through  the  Spirit."  Eph.2:  20-22. 

Here  we  have  an  insight  into  the  nature 
of  the  church  building,  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes the  foundation,  and  the  rock  upon 
which  it  rests.  The  revelation  of  God,  not 
that  of  the  past,  but  present,  is  the  inspira- 
tion, underlying  strata  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  that  upon  which  it  rests.  But 
Mr.  Campbell  started  his  on  the  "  Bible 
alone,"  so  claimed.  There  is  not  an  in- 
stance from  Genesis  to  Revelations  where 
God  ever  authorized  any  man  or  angel  to 
build  his  church  on  theBiblealone.  What 
is  the  New  Testament?  It  is  the  constitu- 
tional law  that  governs  in  the  church,  and 
giving  also  a  history  of  the  formation  and 
provisions  of  the  church,  and  rights  of  the 
citizens  in  order  to  its  perpetuity.  This 
constitution  says  God  placed  the  officer*  in 
the  church  as  "it  pleased  Him;"  Fist 
apostles,  secondly  prophets,  then  gi-ta  of 
healings,"  &c.,  1  Cor.  12.  For  these  officers 
our  constitution  (the  New  Testament) 
provides,  and  no  promise  is  made  for  any 
other  kind  of  organization  or  officers.  But 
Mr.  Campbell  and  others  in  the  great  res- 
toration made,  while  standing  on  the  Bible 
alone,  did  not  see  fit  to  put  any  of  these 
in  his  restored  church.  They  moved  out 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  if  they  could 
preach  they  could  baptize,  and  if  they 
could  baptize,  perhaps  they  could  organize 
Christ's  church  without  apostles,  and  so 
went  on  "restoring."  Seeing  that  the 
New  Testament  was  against  their  presum- 
tuous  work,  they  arose  to  explain:  "That 
apostles  were  all  right  until  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  written  ,  then  the  Bible  stood 
In  the  place  of  apostles  and  prophets,  and 
all  of  the  inspired  ones,"  and  there  was 
nothing  to  take  the  place  of  the  overseer 
and  deacons,  so  they  retained  them.  This 
restored  church,  bu'ilton  the"Biblealone," 
expunged  all  the  officers  that  Christ  put  in 
the  only  church  of  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment gives  any  account  that  he  ever  built, 
and  it  then  whipped  around  and  squared 
itself  for  battle,  declaring  that  it  was  the 
ancient  church  "restored."  Braden  says  so. 

But  let  us  examine  that  idea,  that  after 
the  Christian  constitution  was  written  thev 
needed  no  more  chief  officers  to  carry  on 
the  work  of  the  church.  In  the  organiza- 


tion of  our  government  there  was  a  consti- 
tution formed.  It  stands  related  to  the 
state  as  the  New  Testament  does  to  the 
church.  By  constitutional  provision  there 
are  certain  officers  appointed  in  thegovern- 
ment,  and  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
citizens  declared.  But  who  is  fanatical 
enough  to  believe,  that  after  the  constitu- 
tion was  written  aad  Washington's  term  of 
office  had  expired,  that  there  was  to  be  no 
more  Presidents  or  V ice-Presidents,  Sena- 
tors or  Judiciary,  or  delegates  from  the  peo- 
ple to  constitute  the  house  of  Representa- 
tives. That  they  were  no  longer  needed  in 
the  government;  that  the  constitution,  Con- 
stable and  Justice  of  the  Peace  were  all  that 
were  needed  to  run  the  government. 

Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  constitution  pro- 
vides for  a  line  of  presidents,  vice-presi- 
dents, senators,  etc.,  and  a  government 
according  to  the  constitution  cannot  exist 
without  them?  The  constitution  of  the 
government  is  all  essential  and  so  are  its 
officers  in  order  to  its  perpetuity.  To 
destroy  the  officers  is  to  destroy  the  govern- 
ment. To  organize  another  not  just  as  pro- 
vided for  in  the  constitution  is  to  establish 
a  new  and  strange  government,  not  known 
to  the  people  or  the  constitution.  This  is 
true  in  church  as  well  as  state.  The  New 
Testament  is  the  constitutional  enactment 
to  govern  in  the  Christian  church.  To  build 
by  that  is  to  build  aright.  That  constitu- 
tional lav/  says  that  the  first  officer  in  the 
church  of  God  is  an  apostle.  The  church  of 
which  Mr.  Braden  is  a  member  has  no  such 
officer  The  constitution  says  the  second 
officer  is  a  prophet.  The  church  which  Mr. 
Braden  represents  here,  has  none.  Why  has 
he  the  presumption  to  say  then,  that  the 
church  he  represents  is  the  ancient  church 
"restored?"  But  he  says  there  was  to  be  a 
change.  Apostles  were  to  cease.  Let  us  see. 

When  Judas  Iscariot  went  and  hanged 
himself  after  he  had  betrayed  his  Lord, 
there  were  but  eleven  apostles  left.  What 
was  done  ?  Just  what  is  done  in  our  govern- 
ment when  the  President,  or  a  Senator  or 
any  other  officer  dies  or  is  removed  for  other 
cause;  another  was  appointed  in  his  stead, 
and  "he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven." 
The  only  difference  in  the  appointment  is 
that  in  the  church  God  appoints,  and  in  the 
state  the  people  appoint.  By  and  by  the 
wicked  Herod  killed  James,  another  apos- 
tle, and  there  is  another  vacant  seat;  and 
just  over  the  leaf  a  ways  we  read  Paul,  the 
apostle,  and  so  on  until  we  reach  about 
nineteen  apostles  named  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. As  if  to  settle  this  question  forever, 
Paul  says  these  apostles  were  given  "for  the 
work  of  the  ministry  ;  "  (after  Jesus  ascend- 
ed upon  high)  "for  the  edifying  of  the  body 
of  Christ;"  and  to  continue  "until  we  all 
come  into  a  unity  of  the  faith,  to  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  Son  of  God,  that  we  be  no  more 
tossed  to  and  fro  by  every  wind  of  doctrine." 
Eph.  4.  And  this  side  of  the  house  will  not 
be  moved  by  my  opponent's  gust  of  wind, 
that  he  imagines  to  himself  is  a  raging 
Nebraska  blizzard.  These  ministers  are 
called  to  their  several  offices  by  direct  reve- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


26ft 


lation  from  God,  without  which  they  had 
no  right  to  act.  Hence,  up  at  Antioch,  the 
Holy  Ghost  said,  "Separate  unto  me  Bar- 
nabas and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I 
have  called  them."  "Then  laid  their  hands 
on  them  and  sent  them  away."  Acts  13. 
41  As  God  hath  distributed  to  every  man,  as 
the  Lord  hath  called  every  one,  so  let  him 
walk.  And  so  ordain  I  in  all  churches." 
Paul  did  not  presume  to  send  any  one  until 
the  Lord  spoke;  but  Mr.  Braden  denies  the 
necessity  of  a  divine  call  to  the  ministry. 
Ail  of  his  church  are  called  when  they  are 
born.  Don't  need  any  laying  on  of  hands 
to  authorize  them.  But  in  Mr.  Bradeu's 
mind  this  is  Christ's  church  come  again — 
restored  ;  but  it  came  to  life,  if  it  has  any, 
in  a  different  way  than  the  church  of  Christ 
was  instituted,  and  they  have  left  out  ail  of 
the  leading  officers,  and  none  of  them  are 
sent  of  God  or  have  any  authority,  only  IF 
they  can  preach  they  can  baptize. 

This  would  be  about  the  position  of  Mr. 
Campbell  when  truly  illustrated.  Thepeo- 
ple  of  the  United  States,  by  reason  of  some 
extraordinary  event,  find  themselves  with- 
ont  a  set  of  officers  to  execute  the  laws, 
without  any  government.  Mr.  Smith  takes 
up  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  says:  "The  means  is  provided  herein 
for  officers  by  the  calling  of  an  election,  get- 
ting the  voice  of  the  people,  for  that  is  the 
highest  authority." 

Mr  Campbell  says  no,  not  that.  "Here 
Is  our  constitution  perfected  by  our  fathers. 
No  use  of  the  authority  any  longer.  rlhe 
former  organization  was  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  perfecting  this  law.  I  will  be  your 
president." 

Ah  !  but  says  Mr.  Smith,  you  may  not 
suit  the  people. 

Never  mind  that,  says  Mr.  Campbell. 
The  people,  who  are  the  recognized  author- 
ity, have  nothing  more  to  do  with  it.  The 
word,  the  Constitution,  gives  me  the  right 
to  act.  Of  course  my  right  can't  be  traced 
in  it;  but  never  mind;  if  I  have  authority  to 
read  the  constitution  and  tell  my  neighbor 
about  it;  I  have  a  right  to  act  as  president 
without  a  call  or  election  by  the  people,  as 
provided  by  the  constitution,  and  I  will 
not  wait  till  lam  elected.  Of  course  some 
one  else  may  claim  the  same  right,  and  their 
claim  would  be  just  as  good  as  mine,  and 
thus  we  may  create  division  and  anarchy 
amongthepeopleofa  country  who  formerly 
had  one  government,  one  system,  one  se't 
of  officers  at  a  time.  But  what  of  it? 

But  Mr.  Smith  stands  before  the  people  at 
the  same  time  and  claims  that  when  the 
constitution  was  ordained  there  wa*  a  provi- 
sion made  therein  for  the  filling  up  of  va- 
cant offices,  and  that  before  the  constitu- 
tion can  become  operative  this  provision 
of  it  must  be  put  in  force  as  any  other,  and 
that  it  will  not  do  to  permit  any  person 
who  sees  fit,  to  force  himself  into  the  place 
of  one  of  the  officers,  seeing  that  under  it, 
one  man  has  as  good  a  right  as  another  to 
do  that,  and  if  this  assumption  is  permitted 
we  will  destroy  the  constitution,  the  liber- 
ties of  the  people,  and  consequently  all 


hope  of  a  true  Republic  it«e/',  and  change 
it  into  a  monarchy  and  have  a  system  of 
another  type  and  different  government 
altogether.  Which  is  the  sounder  position? 

Mr.  Braden  and  myself  agree  that  we 
have  the  constitutional  law  given  for  the 
regulation  and  government  of  the  church. 
We  both  urge  the  adoption  of  this  constitu- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  people — yes,  every- 
body says,  it  is  a  good  thing;  let  us  adopt 
it.  But  how  adopt  it?  As  an  instrument 
telling  what  the  organization  of  the  true 
church  once  was?  "What  the  true  teach- 
ings once  were?  Or  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  by  which  to  regulate  the  church 
now?  He  says  it  gives  a  true  account  of  the 
organization  as  it  once  was,  the  practices 
as  they  once  were  ;  but  that  we  are  not  to 
have  the  same  now,  because  certain  of  these 
officers  are  done  away  by  reason  of  the  per- 
fecting of  the  constitution,  and  that  we 
must  pattern  after  the  church  as  left  per- 
fected after  this  time,  instead  of  the  church 
as  reflected  in  the  constitution  itself.  At 
the  same  time  he  claims  Mr.  Campbell  as  a 
restorer  of  the  church  under  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  apostolic  religion.  But  a  re- 
storer means  to  produce  the  thing  •  not  to 
produce  something  which  is  not  the  thing, 
neither  something  that  might  have  existed 
after  the  thing.  I  take  the  ground  and 
state  to  you  that  it,  the  constitution,  gives 
a  true  account  of  the  organization  as  it  once 
was,  the  practices  as  they  once  were,  and 
that  they  are  the  same  that  ought  to  be  in 
the  church  now,  and  would  be  if  anarchy 
had  not  reigned  since  the  true  officers  fell 
asleep,  and  a  change  was  effected  iu  the  gov- 
ernment. 

That  there  is  a  means  provided  in  the 
constitution  for  the  calling  of  officers,  and 
when  called  in  that  way  they  will  act  and 
administer  the  laws  as  "did  the  original  offi- 
cers, and,  if  not,  the  government  itself  is 
chanered,  and  hence  a  different  church,  and 
instead  of  being  the  church  as  provided  in 
the  conslitution,  it  is  a  new  thing,  unknown 
to  the  constitution ;  that  his  man  (Mr. 
Campbell;  is  uot  the  restorer,  for  the  reason 
that  he  has  not  produced  the  thing  in  or- 
ganization, practice  or  teaching  as  included 
in  and  was  a  part  of  the  original ;  that 
among  the  things  provided  in  the  constitu- 
tion are : 

1.  That  men  may  attain  to  wisdon  and 
knowledge  by  the  teaching  and  instruction 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"Hmybeit.  when  he  the  Spirit  of  truth  Is  come,  he 
will  guide  you  into  all  truth ;  for  he  shall  not  speak  of 
himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  that  shall  ho 
speak,  anrl  he  will  show  you  things  to  come."  John  16:13. 

"  This  is  eternal  life  that  they  may  know  th.  e  the 
only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  ihou  hast  sent." 
— 76fdl7:3.  Again,  "  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the 
Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."—!  Cor.  12:3  "After  I 
heard  of  your  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  and  love  unto  all 
the  Saints,  I  ceased  not  to  make  mention  of  ynu  in  my 
prayers  that  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Father  of  gl<>ry,  may  give  unto  you  the  Spirit  of  wit- 
dom  and  revelation  in  the  knowled.  e  of  him.  That  ye 
may  know  what  is  the  hope  of  his  calling  " — Eph  1, 15. 

2.  That  the  officers  under  this  constitu- 
tion are  to  administer,  as  called  to  act  in  the 
work   by   the   head  of  the  church,  Christ, 
through  the  Holy  Spirit. 


266 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


3.  That  in  the  church  itself  are  placed 
certain  gifts  for  the  'jualification  of  persona 
for  the  work  of  perfecting  of  the  tSaiuts, 
carrying  on  the  ministerial  work,  the  in- 
struction of  the  body — the  church,  ''Till 
we  should  all  ^ome  to  the  unity  of  the  faith, 
to  the  fullnt-si-  of  the  measure  of  the  stature 
of  Christ."  Were  these  provisions  of  the 
constitution  respected  there  would  be  the 
full  means  of  carrying  on  the  work  as  there 
is  under  our  election  system  of  filling  the 
vacant  places  in  the  government.  And 
when  I  stand  with  the  constitution  and  in- 
sist that  officers  must  be  chosen  in  a  proper 
way,  and  that  way  is  by  the  inspiration  of 
the  Spirit,  the  only  answer  he  gives  me  is 
the  old  one  used  against  the  Saints  in  the 
first  century,  that  only  a  few  fanatics  be- 
lieve in  revelation.  But  shall  I  drop  the 
Bible  and  go  into  the  grand  scramble  for  the 
spoils  in  the  anarchy  of  confusion,  and  say 
I  have  as  good  a  right  to  elect  myself  as  any 
one? 

"  It  is  only  a  few  fanatics  who  believe  in 
revelation."  O  yes,  certainly.  But  it  has 
been  only  a  few  persons  who  were  falsely 
called  fanatics  who  have  believed  in  revela- 
tion in  the  history  of  the  race. 

Noah  was  the  fanatic  in  his  time,  so  the 
people  claimed.  He  believed  in  revelation. 
Abraham  was  the  next  prominent  fanatic; 
then  came  Moses,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
Daniel  and  Zechariah,  most  all  of  whom 
the  people  thought  so  fanatical  that  they 
were  vilely  treated  or  killed. 

After  them  comes  Jesus,  and  he  is  set 
down  with  the  fanatics  ;  then  Peter,  James, 
John  and  Paul — all  fanatical,  according  to 
the  rage  of  the  people  in  their  time,  and 
terribly  maltreated  and  abused. 

Now,  it  is  only  a  "  few  fanatics  "  that  be- 
lieve in  revelation.  It  is  the  Latter  Day 
Saints  this  time.  Does  anybody  else?  No. 
That  is  the  reason  they  call  them  fanatics. 
They  are  the  only  ones  that  "contend  for 
this  faith  once  delivered  -to  the  Saints." 
And  hence,  we  are  called  fanatics.  My 
friends,  are  we  not  yet  in  good  company, 
with  Noah,  Abraham,  Moses,  Isaiah,  David, 
Job,  Jesus,  and  all  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets  of  the  world? 

The  constitution  of  the  Christian  Govern- 
ment clearly  provides  for  an  uninterrupted 
line  of  apostles  to  be  continued  in  the 
church  and  the  step  was  taken  to  carry 
out  this  provision  by  the  filling  of  the  seat 
of  Judas  Iscariot,  and  that  of  the  apostle 
James,  &c.,  all  having  been  appointed  by 
the  great  head  of  the  church,  Christ. 

By  the  constitution  of  our  country  there 
are  certain  rights  and  privileges  belong- 
ing to  the  citizen,  that  is,  the  right  of  suf- 
frage;  the  right  of  representation;  the 
right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness  ;  and  the  right  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  con- 
science. These  rights  are  guaranteed  by 
the  constitution.  To  deny  them  to  the  citi- 
zen is  to  take  away  their  constitutional 
rights  and  destroy  the  force  of  the  consti- 
tution itself.  So  long  as  this  government 
is  to  be  continued,  and  the  constitution  ad- 


hered to,  these  rights  must  lemainwith  the 
citizens.  This  is  true  also  ...  tLe  constitu- 
tion of  the  church.  It  provides  for  the  re- 
ceiving of  foreigners  into  the  fold,  and 
specifies  the  way,  and  lays  down  the  rules 
by  which  they  are  to  be  received,  which 
are  :  1st  faith,  2nd  repentance,  3d  baptism, 
4th  the  laying  on  of  hands.  These  rules 
are  stipulated  and  ordained  by  the  consti- 
tution itself,  and  these  rules  originated  with 
God,  and  not  with  man  ;  men  have  not  the 
right  to  abrogate  any  one  of  them,  or 
change  them  in  the  least  unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  constitution  itself  is  not  in 
force,  but  has  been 'set  aside  and  another 
established  by  the  great  head  of  the  church 
to  take  its  place.  The  constitution  further 
provides,  for  certain  blessings  and  privil- 
eges to  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  ;  and  all 
are  equal  under  the  constitutional  law  m 
the  church,  as  well  as  in  state.  The  bless- 
ings in  the  chureh  are  : — 

1.  The  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which 
there  is  but  one  ;   but  it  manifests  itself  in. 
different  ways,   but  it  is  the  same  Spirit ; 
and  everyone  has  the  right  to  enjoy  it  as 
really  in  the  church  as  they  have  the  equal 
right  of  representation,  or  worship,  in  the 
state.     "For  there  are  differences  of  ad- 
ministration, but  the  same  Spirit."     1  Cor. 
12.    "The    manifestation  of    the    Spirit    is 
given  to  every  man."    "Ye  may  all  prophe- 
cy one  by  one."     1   Cor.,   14:3*1.     In  their 
adoption  each  one  is  entitled  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  the  seal  of  his  adoption.    Hence, 
"After  tliat  ye  believed  ye  were  sealed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."    This  is  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  Jesus  said   he  would 
send  if  he  went  away.    Said  he,  "When  he 
in  come  he  will  testify  of  me,"  and  the  "tes- 
timony of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy." 
Rev.  19  : 10.    This  is  all  the  spirit  that  was 
ever  promised  to  the  believer,  either  as  in- 
dwelling or  as  outdwelling.    The  attempt  to 
make  it  appear  that  there  are  two  Holy 
Spirits,  the    miraculous  and   non-miracu- 
lous; or  the  miraculous  and  Indwelling,  is 
sheer  cant,  and  without  warrant  in  the 
Scriptures. 

2.  To  the  citizen  is  guaranteed  by  the 
constitution,  that  if  any  are  sick,  they  may 
send  for  the  elders  of  thechurch,  (not  apos- 
tles of  the  church),  and  let  them  pray  over 
them,  anointing   them  with    oil.  and    the 
"  prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick;  and  the 
Lord  shall  raise  them  up."    James,   5    ir>. 
Hence,  Jesus  says,  "They  shall  lay  handp  on 
the  sick  and  they  shall  recover."    Mark  16. 
This  privilege  is  guaranteed  to  the  citizen 
in   the  constitution  of   the  church  equally 
with  the  right  to  vote  by  the  constitution 
of  the  state.    And  you  can  no  more  destroy 
these  rights  in  one,  and  retain  the  goven 
ment  in  tact,    than   you   can  in  the  other. 
But  Mr.  Campoell  in  his  "restored  church," 
claiming  to  stand  on  and  pattern  after  the 
old   Christian   constitution,   discarded    the 
doctrine  of  "baptism  and  the  laying  on  of 
hands,"  and  retained  one  baptism  and   nr> 
laying  on  of  hands — claimed  that  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  quite  an   unneces- 
sary thing  to  be  enjoyed  so  Long  a  time 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


207 


after  the  writing  of  the  constitution.  The 
constitution  was  good,  but  its  promises  are 
of  no  account.  That  a  great  many  repeals 
have  been  made,  or  the  provisions  ignored, 
and  new  regulations  and  provisions  provid- 
ed, but  of  course  it  is  the  old  "church 
come  again."  Let  us  see.  The  ancient 
church  was  built  by  divine  revelation  from 
heaven  by  men  authorized  to  act  as  ambas- 
Badors;  Mr.  Campbell  said,  "If  we  can 
preach  we  can  baptize  "  The  ancient 
church  had  apostles  and  prophets;  Mr. 
Campbell  had  none.  If  they  could  preach 
they  could  baptize,  and  if  they  could  bap- 
tize, may  be  they  could  get  along  without 
apostles  or  prophets,  and  they  put  only 
elders  and  deacons  into  their  church  But 
it  is  the  same  old  church  restored.  That 
is  as  clear  as  mud. 

The  ancient  church  taught  the  laying  on 
of  hands  for  the  receiving  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
but  Mr.  Campbell  said  that  if  they  could 
preach  they  could  baptize;  and  if  they 
could  baptize,  may  be  they  could  put  ail  of 
the  apostles  out  and  put  In  the  elders  and 
deacons  (without  God  saying  anything 
about  either),  and  perhaps  the  laying  on  of 
hand?  was  not  needed,  so  it  was  left  out  of 
Mr.  Campbell's  restored  church.  What  a 
restoration  !  The  ancient  church  enjoyed 
the  snft  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  faith,  and 
wisdom,  and  knowledge,  and  tongues,  and 
prophecy,  and  visions,  and  dreams,  and 
healings,  by  which  they  received  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  and  the  seal  of  their  inheri- 
tance. But  Mr.  Campbell  with  an  "if," 
and  a  "perhaps."  and  "may  be,"  had  pro- 
ceeded thus  far  in  restoring  the  ancient 
church,  and  having  done  so  well,  he  thought 
that  it  was  likely  they  could  get  along  wiih- 
out  any  Holy  Ghost  at  all — vision,  dream, 
prophecy,  healing  or  revelation.  It  was  the 
old  church  "restored,"  however,  so  says 
Mr.  Braden.  But  they  must  hold  on  to  the 
old  constitution,  "stand  on  the  Bible  alone" 
—no  doubt  about  that.  This  so  forcibly 
reminds  me  of  the  politician's  story  of 


grandfather's  old  gun,  that  I  will  ask  the 
audience  to  indulge  me  in  relating  it.  The 
guu  was  one  that  was  said  to  have  come 
down  through  the  wars.  It  had  been  re- 
vamped and  remodeled,  so  much,  however, 
that  it  wag  difficult  to  trace  the  antiquity. 
The  gifted  little  son  had  inquired  and  found 
out  that  the  old  gun  had  a  new  stock,  new 
barrel,  new  lock  and  new  ramrod  ;  and  he 
was  puzzled.  Finally,  he  looked  up  to  his 
father  and  asked:  Why,  I  don't  see  why 
you  call  it  grandfather's  old  gun?  You 
little  fool,  said  the  father,  don't  you  see 
that  touch-hole?  That  is  the  same  that  was 
in  your  grandfather's  old  gun.  Now  I  have 
been  looking  for  this  old  gun  since  Mr. 
Braden  brought  out  his  faith,  and  I  have 
found  that  he  called  his  people  by  a  differ- 
ent name  from  the  Saints,  had  a  different 
kind  of  faith,  different  baptism,  changed 
tne  laying  on  of  hands,  had  a  new  kind  en- 
tirely of  church  officers,  a  different  Holy 
Spirit.  Christ  e  worfc  in  the  church  differ- 
ent, a  different  kind  of  apostles  and  proph- 
ets (dead  instead  of  live  ones),  a  different 
way  of  calling  tneir  ministers,  their  church 
on  a  different  rock  from  the  ancient  cnurch, 
and  I  begin  to  look  around  to  see  why  he 
calls  it, the  old  church  "restored,"  and  lam 
pointed  to,  "baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  (Applause).  Thus  with  scarcely  a 
single  important  provision  of  the  old  con- 
stitution to  be  found  in  their  new  tangled 
"restored  church,"  they  have  the  unquali- 
fied presumption  to  come  before  the  world 
with  the  claim  that  they  are  standing  solid 
on  the  old  Christian  constitution,  or  "Bible, 
and  Bible  alone."  Or  in  other  words,  while 
professing  to  carry  in  tact  "grandfather's 
old  gun,"  they  take  the  absurd  position  and 
make  the  absurd  statement  that  there  was 
a  more  excellent  church  than  the  one  the 
constitution  made  special  provision  for, 
and  cite  us  to  the  following  to  support  it: 
"But  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts,  and  yet 
show  I  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way." 
(Time  called) 


2(58 


THE  BUADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.   BRADEN'S   SIXTH    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — Mormonism  takes  from  or- 
thodoxy, this  key  note  of  orthodoxy,  this 
direct  and  immediate  influence  of  the  spirit, 
in  addition  to  and  distinct  from  any  that 
he  exerts  through  the  truth.  Having 
claimed  the  cause,  it  claims  the  necessary 
effects,  inspiration  and  revelation.  By 
means  of  new  revelations,  Mormonism  can 
introduce  any  new  dogma,  and  if  consis- 
tent, orthodoxy  cannot  reject  such  dogma. 
As  revelation  from  the  days  of  Adam  to  the 
writing  of  the  last  book  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  constantly  adding  new  ideas, 
and  new  revelations — as  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  added  to  the  Old,  Mormonism, 
says  the  book  of  Mormon,  and  the  revela- 
tions of  Joseph  the  Seer  have  been  added 
to  the  New  Testament,  and  if  orthodoxy  is 
logical  to  its  admission  of  a  direct  and  im- 
mediate influence  of  the  spirit,  distinct 
from,  and  in  addition  to  any  through  the 
truth,  an  influence  that  is  miraculous,  it 
cannot  reject  this  claim  of  Mormonism. 

Through  this  wide  door, thrown  fully  open 
by  orthodoxy,  Mormonism  enters  with  its 
new  revelations.  It  can  change  the  name 
of  "Christian"  to  "Latter  Day  Saints"  and 
claim  revelation  for  so  doing — new  revela- 
tions— a  claim  that  no  one  can  make  for 
changing  Christian  into  any  human  name. 
It  can  change  the  name  of  the  church  from 
the  simple  Scriptural  title  ''The  Church  of 
Christ"  into  the  Ashdodish  lingo  of  Babel 
"The  Re-organized  church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter  Day  Saints"  and  make  the  same 
claim — a  thing  that  no  one  can  do  for 
any  name  worn  by  the  churches.  It  can 
teach  baptism  for  the  dead,  pre-existence 
of  souls,  confirmation,  blessing  children, 
and  add  to  the  simple  officers  of  the  church 
a  score  of  officers  unknown  to  the  Bible,  and 
change  the  church  into  a  hierarchy  in 
which  nearly  every  man  is  an  officer,  and 
claim  revelation  for  it.  Such  claim  cannot 
be  made  for  the  corruptions  that  orthodoxy 
has  introduced  into  Clmstianity.  Nay,  it 
can  through  this  dogma  of  orthodoxy,  a  di- 
rect and  immediate  influence  of  the  spirit, 
since  such  influence  must  be  miraculous, 
and  inspiration,  claim  to  give  the  world  a 
new  revelation  in  favor  of  spiritual  wifery 
and  polygamy,  calling  it  "celestial  marri- 
age "  This  dogma  of  a  direct,  immediate 
and  miraculous  influence  of  the  spirit,  is 
the  sole  and  only  parent  of  Mormonism,  and 
every  new  and  peculiar  feature  in  it.  It  is 
an  insult  to  common  sense,  and  a  deli  berate 
falsehood,  for  the  orthodox  religious  world 
to  vociferate  that  "Campbellism  is  the  par- 
ent of  Murmonism."  The  clear,  scriptural 
teaching  of  what  they  call  "Campbellism," 
that  all  direct  and  immediate  influence  of 
the  spirit  was  miraculous  and  ceased  with 
miracles,  and  that  the  spirit  now  influences 
men  only  through  the  truth  he  revealed  is 


utterly  destructive  of  Mormonism,  and! 
drove  Rigdon  out  of  the  Restoration.  As- 
well  say  that  Christianity  was  the  parent 
of  papacy.  Orthodoxy  is  the  parent  of 
Mormonism;  of  all  that  is  peculiar  to  it. 
The  orthodox  notion,  that  is  the  key  note 
of  orthodoxy — the  direct  and  immediate  in- 
fluence of  the  spirit,  the  miraculous  influ- 
ence of  the  spirit,  is  the  sole  and  only  parent 
of  Mormonism  Mormon  revelations,  in- 
cluding the  revelations  in  favor  of  polyga- 
my, revelations  in  favor  of  all  other  Mormon- 
vagaries  are  simply  that  key  note  of  ortho- 
doxy gone  to  seed. 

This  central  idea,  this  key-note  of  ortho- 
doxy, is  the  Trojan  horse  by  means  of  which 
those  lying  Greeks,  Mormon  revelations 
and  vagaries  were  introduced  into  the 
Scriptural  ideas,  that  Mormonism  in  com- 
mon with  what  is  called  "Campbellism1* 
accepted  from  the  Bible;  and  which,  like 
Aeneas,  the  Disciples  rejected  as  falsehoods 
of  the  enemy.  It  is  by  means  of  this  Trojan 
horse,  fabricated  by  orthodoxy,  that  the 
pure  teachings  of  the  Bible,  that  what  i» 
called  "Campbellism"  taught;  and  that 
Mormonism  accepted  at  first  have  been  de- 
stroyed. Had  Rigdon,  Smith  and  the  lead- 
ers of  Mormonism  accepted  the  clear  Scrip- 
tural teaching  of  the  Disciples,  that  all  di- 
rect, immediate  and  miraculous  influence 
of  the  Spirit  ceased  when  it  had  accom- 
plished its  work  in  completing  the  work  of 
God,  Mormonism  would  never  have  cursert 
the  world.  No  immediate,  miraculous  in- 
fluence ;  no  new  revelations,  no  baptizing 
the  living  for  the  dead,  no  pre-existence  of 
souls,  no  spiritual  wifery,  no  polygamy,  no 
Mormonism.  But  they  rejected  the  clear 
Scriptural  teachings  of  the  Disciples  and 
took  up  the  orthodox  idea  of  a  direct,  im- 
mediate and  miraculous  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  in  addition  to  and  distinct  from  any 
he  exerts  through  the  truth  he  has  revealed, 
and  logically  claimed  that  when  they  had 
the  cause  they  had  the  necessary  effect, 
inspiration  and  new  revelations  ;  and  gave 
us  revelation  after  revelation,  until  this 
immediate,  miraculous  influence  of  ortho- 
doxy culminated  in  spiritual  wifery,  celes- 
tial marriage,  polygamy;  in  pollution  that 
would  disgust  a  Grecian  satyr.  It  is  a  fact 
that  has  puzzled  many  persons,  thatalmost, 
invariably  claims  of  direct  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  inspiration  and  miraculous  power, 
sanctiflcation  and  holiness  end  in  infamous 
lewdness.  Let  one  examine  a  history  of 
the  various  parties  and  sects  that  have 
arisen  in  human  history  that  have  claimed 
this  direct  influence  as  a  constant  influence 
of  their  followers,  and  have  laid  special 
claims  to  revelations,  inspiration,  holiness, 
sanctification,  second  blessing,  higher  life, 
and  in  every  instance  delusion,  fanaticism, 
crime,  and  especially  lewd  ness  has  attended 
them.  The  most  infamous  scenes  in  human 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


2G9 


history  have  been  the  result  of  such  vaga- 
ries and  movements.  There  is  not  a  church 
that  believes  in  this  direct  and  immediate 
influence,  that  has  not  had  trouble  with  in- 
famies and  pollutions  growing  out  of  it. 
The  fanatics  that  troubled  the  apostles  and 
the  fathers,  the  visionaries  of  all  ages  the 
monsters  of  Munster,  the  perfectionists  of 
the  last  hundred  years,  the  sanctification- 
ists,  and  holiness  fanatics  of  all  ages, 
religions  and  lands,  have  invariably  ended 
in  lewdness,  as  perfectionism  ended  in  the 
Oneida  pollution,  and  Mormon  claims  of 
inspiration  ended  in  polygamy. 

As  a  class  the  persons  who  make  such 
claims  are  the  most  spasmodic,  fanatical, 
inconsistent  members  in  the  church.  The 
preachers  who  preach  it  are  of  the  same 
character.  The  poorest  specimens  of  daily 
Christian  life  are  the  preachers,  the  persons, 
the  churches  who  make  the  loudest  claims 
to  perfection,  sauctification,  holiness,  second 
blessing,  higher  life,  direct  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  Inspiration,  revelations,  etc.  They 
mistake  such  fanaticism  for  Christianity, 
and  think  that  because  they  have  this 
frenzy  they  do  not  need  to  trouble  them- 
selves about  pure  living,  and  often  think 
that  because  they  act  constantly  under  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  what  they  are  in- 
clined to  do,  no  matter  what,  must  be  right. 
It  is  not  their  excited,  frenzied  appetites 
and  lusts  that  move  them,  but  a  direct  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit,  therefore  it  must  be 
right.  The  Mormon  claims,  and  logically, 
that  if  he  is  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  and  feels  Mke  polygamy,  it  is  the 
Spirit  that  makes  him  feel  so,  and  it  must 
be  right. 

There  is  a  reason  for  this  lewdness  of  these 
frenzies.  All  abnormal  excitements  of  the 
nervous  system,  such  as  are  caused  by  ether, 
opium,  hasheesh,  alcohol,  etc.,  generally 
excite  the  base  of  the  brain,  and  especially 
amativeness  and  combativeness,  hence 
the  drunkard  is  obscene,  profane  and  quar- 
relsome. A  disordered  condition  of  the 
nervous  system,  and  generally  the  organs 
of  sex.  especially  in  females,  is  present  in 
nearly  every  instance  of  such  frenzy,  and 
is  generally  its  exciting  cause.  Mesmerism, 
its  trances,  somnambulism,  catalepsy,  and 
abnormal  conditions  of  the  nervous  system, 
are  generally  based  on  and  caused  by,  or  at 
least  attended  by  disordered  condition  of 
certain  organs.  The  result  is  that  just  as 
the  drunkard  is  lewd,  these  parties  display 
lewd  inclinations,  and  mistake  such  frenzy 
for  the  Influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As 
disordered  condition  of  certain  functions  is 
the  cause  of  such  frenzy,  it  is  attended  by 
lewdness. 

The  entire  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  utterly 
opposed  to  the  idea  of  a  constant  enjoyment 
of  this  miraculous  influence,  by  every  one. 
As  it  was  not  a  moral  influence  it  could  uot 
so  be  enjoyed.  Then  we  repeat  that  the  most 
dangerous  delusion  that  has  ever  cursed 
the  church  has  been  this  vagary  of  a  direct 
and  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit.  It 
has  been  the  Pandora's  box  out  of  which 
has  come  only  delusion,  fanaticism  and  pol- 


lution. The  polygamy  of  Mormonism  is  its 
last  and  foulest  product,  but  it  is  the  legi- 
timate fruit  of  the  orthodox  dogma  of  direct 
and  miraculous  influence  of  the  Spirit.  The 
Oneida  abomination  and  the  pollutions  of 
Utah  are  onJy  that  dogma  gone  to  seed.  It 
is  irrational,  utterly  unscriptural,  the  off- 
spring of  a  diseased* imagination  or  nervous 
system,  and  its  results  are  delusion,  fana- 
ticism, lewdness,  infamy  and  crime.  Sanc- 
tification  and  perfection  ended  in  the 
Oueida  abomination,  and  direct  and  imme- 
diate influence  of  the  Spirit  and  revelations 
ended  in  polygamy  among  Mormons.  Such 
parties  overlook  two  facts.  The  direct  am! 
immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit  was  not  a 
moral  influence  and  exerted  no  moral  power. 
Its  purpose  was  to  reveal  truth.  It  was  not 
an  influence  imparted  to  all  followers  of 
God,  but  only  to  those  whom  he  used  as 
mediums  of  revelation.  It  was  not  a  con- 
stant influence  with  them,  but  was  exerted 
only  while  they  were  revealing  the  truth. 
It  was  not  poured  out  prodigally,  but  was 
sparingly  used.  It  was  used  only  when 
necessary.  It  was  not  a  tool  of  the  one  en- 
joying it  to  be  used  constantly  for  every 
trivial  purpose  like  the  pretended  inspira- 
tion of  Joe  Smith  and  other  visionaries,  but 
was  used  sparingly  and  only  when  neces- 
sary, and  no  longer  than  to  accomplish  its 
immediate  object.  Not  only  is  it  true  that 
the  clear,  common-sense,  scriptural  teach- 
ings of  the  Disciples  are  utter  destruction  of 
this  vagary  and  all  of  its  foul  progeny,  but 
the  Disciples  alone  can  meet  Mormons  in 
discussion  and  overturn  it.  The  Disciple 
appeals  to  the  word  of  God,  and  that  alone. 
He  shows  that  it  teaches  that  there  have 
been  two  influences  exerted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  One  immediate,  direct,  miraculous, 
that  was  torevea]  truth  and  attest  its  divine 
origin.  That  was  not  a  moral  influence, 
was  given  for  a  certain  purpose.  That  pur- 
pose has  been  accomplished.  It  has  ceased. 
This  cuts  off  all  the  Mormon  claim  to  direct, 
immediate,  miraculous  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  miraculous  powers  in  revelation.  Ifc 
is  a  death  blow  to  all  such  claim.  This  is 
why  the  Mormons  of  Wilber  were  so  much 
opposed  to  debating  with  a  "Camp  belli  te," 
that  they  went  to  the  Hon.  S.  8.  Alley  and 
wanted  him  to  write  to  me  and  persuade 
me  not  to  accept  the  invitation  of  Mr.  Luse, 
to  debate  with  their  champion.  They  knew 
that  our  clear,  common-sense,  scriptural 
teaching  took  the  very  ground  from  under 
their  feet.  No  one  who  believes  and  admits 
the  orthodox  claim  of  direct  and  immediate 
influence  of  the  Spirit  can  meet  a  Mormon. 
Let  a  man  who  believes  it  undertake  to 
debate  with  one.  The  Mormon  demands, 
"Do  you  believe  in  a  direct  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit — a  direct  call  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  preach — that  regeneration  is  a  miracle, 
and  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ? '* 
"I  do,"  fervently  responds  our  orthodox 
brother,  "and  blessed  be  God,  thousands 
can  testify  they  have  experienced  all  of 
them."  "Then,"  coolly  retorts  the  Mor- 
mon, "that  is  just  what  we  claim,  only  w» 
are  consistent,  and  you  are  uot.  We  claim 


270 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


this  direct  influence,  tis  yon  do,  and  no  more 
than  that,  but  we  are  consistent.  As  it  is 
miraculous,  we  claim  miracles.  We  claim  a 
call  by  the  Hol.v  Spirit  to  preach,  and  we 
claim  to  speak  by  inspiration  as  the  Spirit 
give.*  usutterance.  Claiming  that  wespeak 
as  the  Spirit  gives  us  utterance,  we  are  con- 
sistent and  claim  that  our  utterances  are 
revelations,  as  all  utterances  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  and  must  be.  Claiming  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  claim  its  miracu- 
lous power  and'  miracles.  If  you  admit  this 
miraculous  influence,  you  should  admit  that 
its  utterances  now  are  as  much  revelations, 
as  they  were  in  the  apost'es'  day.  We 
claim  that  God  called  men  who  were  poly- 
garnists  and  gave  men  more  than  one  wife ; 
and  that  he  did  no  more  in  giving  the  poly- 
gamy revelation  to  Smith  than  he  did 
anciently.  In  short,  we  unite  with  you  in 
claiming  thecausedirect,  miraculous  power, 
and  you  cannot  claim  the  existence  of  the 
cause  and  deny  its  necessary  effect,  any 
more  than  you  can  admit  the  law  of  gravi- 
tation and  deny  the  fall  of  an  unsupported 
body."  To  such  a  claim  orthodoxy  can 
make  no  reply.  No  believer  in  the  key 
note  of  orthodoxy  direct,  miraculous  influ- 
enctt  of  the  Spirit,  can  meet  a  Mormon  in 
discussion. 

We  will  now  notice  some  of  my  oppo- 
nent's talk.  I  have  proved  Joe  Smith  to  be 
a  base  impostor,  and  I  call  him  such.  I 
have  proved  Mormons  who  claim  inspiration 
to  be  impostors,  and  I  call  them  such.  All 
that  Christ  has  washed  in  his  blood  and  has 
made  kings  and  priests  have  a  right  to 
preach  and  baptize.  John  said  Christ  had 
made  them  kings  and  priests,  and  such 
have  a  right  to  preach  and  baptize.  Jonn 
said  Christ  had  made  them  kings  and 
priests.  He  did  not  say  n*  witt.  Peter  said 
that  all  Christians  were  kings  and  priests 
then,  not  tnai  they  wou:a  oe  It  took  mi- 
raculous power  to  reveaj  trutn  and  confirm 
it  to  g:ve  the  constitution.  Those  made 
kings  and  priests  oy  the  constitutioc  need 
no  constitution-matting  power.  The  church 
is  built  on  Cnrist  on  his-  Messiahship,  on 
aposties  and  prophets.  There  is  no  conflict 
It.  such  expressions.  We  denounce  Joe 
Smith  as  an  impostor  because  he  pretended 
to  be  a  constitution  maker,  when  God  de- 
clares that  such  work  is  done  and  has 
ceased.  When  the  world  departed  from  the 
constitution  Mr.  Campbell  said  to  it,  "The 
constitution  is  perfect  and  divine,  let  us  or- 
ganize in  accordance  with  it."  His  author- 
ity was  in  the  constitution  that  made  him 
king  and  priest.  Joe  Smith  and  Mormons 
got  up  a  bogus  constitutional  convention, 
made  a  lot  of  trash  they  call  "  the  fullness 
of  the  gospel,"  and  undertake  to  substitute 
it  for  the  constitution  given  by  God's  con- 
vention, the  apostles. 

QUERIES   FOR   MR.   KELLEY. 

I.  "Does  not  the  inspired   Paul  say  that 
there  is  but  one  baptism  in   the  church? 
Eph.  iv,  5. 

II.  Did  not  Jesus  command  his  apostles 
to  baptize  converts?    Matt,  xxviii,  2tt. 


ill.  Were  not  they  to  baptize  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit? 

IV.  Was  not   this  baptism  unto  the  re- 
mission ol  sins?    Acts  ii,  38. 

V.  Was  it  not  in  water? 

VI.  Is  it  not  this  baptism  that  Jesus  com- 
manded the  apostles  to  perform,  that  is,  in 
the    name  of    the    Father,   Son    and  Holy 
Spirit,   that  is  unto  remission,    that  is  in 
water,    the   one    baptism    that   is    in    the 
church  ? 

VII.  Is  not  baptism  in  the  Spirit  a  prom- 
ise?   Is  not  Christ  alone  the  administra- 
tor? 

VIII.  Is  it  a  command  ? 

IX.  Is  it  in  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit? 

X.  Is  it  unto  remission  of  sins? 

XI.  Can  Holy  Spirit  baptism,   that  Id  u 
promise,  not  a  command,  that  is  not  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spiri% 
of  which  Christ  alone  is  the  administrator, 
that  is  not  unto  remission  of  sins,  be  the 
one  baptism  that  is  in  the  church? 

XII.  If  there  is  but  one  baptism,  which 
is   that  baptism,   water  baptism  or  Holy 
Spirit  baptism  ? 

Xlir.  Do  you  give  the  lie  direct  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  saying  there  are  two  bap- 
tisms ? 

XIV.  Or  do  you  insult  common  sense  by 
denying  that  each  of  these   is   a  baptism, 
separate  and  distinct  from  the  other? 

XV.  Did  not  Jesus  say  that  he    would 
leave  the  apostles,  and   that  the  Comforter 
would  take  his  place  with  the  apostles  ? 

XVI.  Does  the  Holy  Spirit  take  the  place 
of  Jesus  with  any  one  now,  after  Jesus  has 
left  any  person  now? 

X  VII.  Did  not  Jesus  declares  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  would  recall  to  the  minds  of  the 
Apostles  what  he,  Jesus,  had  said  to  the 
apostles? 

XVIII.  Does  the  Holy  Spirit  recall  to  the 
mind  of  any  person  now  what  Jesus  said  to 
such  persons? 

XIX.  Then  is  not  this  promise  as  personal 
to  the  apostles  as  the  promise  that  Jesus 
made  to  the  apostles  that  he  would  m^efc 
them,  the  apostles,  in  Gallilee? 

XX.  Did  the  apostles  have  to  V    hands 
on   the  Samaritans    before  they    TOUtd  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Spirit,  in  miracul^uo  o'  w  ei  ? 

XXI.  Were  not   these  Samaritans  "VQO 
believed  and  had  been  baptized  children  of 
God? 

XXII.  Had   not   they   been  born    01    fchfe 
water  and  the  Spirit? 

XXI II.  If  they    were  children   of  G'.d, 
had  not  God  sent  the  indwelling  Spirit  into 
their  hearts? 

XXIV.  Did  not  John  preach  that  the  king- 
dom was  at  hand,  approaching? 

XXV.  Could  he  then  be  in  it? 

XXVI.  Did    not  Jesus   preach   that    the 
kingdom  was  at  hand,  approaching? 

XXVII.  Could  he  then  be  in  it? 

XXVIII.  DM  n  >t  Jesus  declare  that  per- 
sons  to   whom  he  was  talking   would   see 
the  kingdom  come  with  power? 

XXIX.  Was  it  then  in  existence?    Was 
he  in  it?   Were  his  apostles?  Wasanyone? 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


271 


XXX.  Did  not  Jesus  say  only  about  six 
weeks  before  his  death  that  he  would  build 
his  church  ou  the  truth,  his  Messiahship  ? 

XXXI.  Was  it  not  still  future?    Was  he 
or  any  one  in  it? 

XXXII.  Could  his   Messiahship  be  laid 
as  the  foundation,  as  a  demonstrated  truth, 
until    he  had,  by  his  resurrection,  demon- 
strated his  Messiahship? 

XXXIII.  Could  the  church  be  in  exist- 
ence before  itsonly  foundation  had  been  laid? 

XXXIV.  Was  not  Joseph  of  Arimathea 
etill  waiting  for  the  kingdom  after  Jesus 
was  dead  ? 

XXXV.  Could  it  be  in  existence?    Was 
it  not  future?    Could  any  one  be  in  it? 

XXXVII.  W^re  not  the  apostles   to  be 
endued  from  on  high?    Was  not  this  the 
case  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus? 

XXXVIII.  Were  not  the  apostles  still 
to  receive  power  when  the  Holy  spirit  fell 
on  them  justa  few  moments  before  theascen- 
sion  of  Jesus  ? 

XXXIX.  Did  not  they  receive  this  prom- 
ise on  the  day  of  Pentecost? 

XL.  Did  not  the  Holy  Spirit  fall  on  them 
at  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom  as  an.  ac- 
tual fact  on  the  day  of  Pentecost? 

XLI.  Was  not  that  when  the  kingdom 
came  with  power? 

XI, II.  Does  not  Paul  say  in  Eph.  iv.  that 
miraculous  powers  are  to  remain  until  the 
children  of  God  attain  to  the  unity  of  the 
faith,  until  they  attain  to  a  perfect  man,  a 
perfect  body  of  which  Christ  is  the  head? 

XLITI.  Where  is  your  Scripture  for  con- 
tinuing them  beyond  that  period. 


XLIV.  Does  not  Paul  say  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, who  had  nine  spiritual  powers  in  their 
church,  "Desire  earnestly  the  best  spiritual 
gifts,  nevertheless  I  show  unto  you  a  more 
excellent  way?" 

XLV.  Does  he  not  mean  a  way  more  ex- 
cel lent  than  the  exercise  of  the  best  spiritual 
gifts. 

XLVI.  Does  not  Paul  say  that  prophecy, 
all  utterance  by  inspiration,  knowledge,  or 
inspiration,  or  knowledge  imparted  by  in- 
spiration, tongues,  all  signs  of  inspiration, 
and  revelation  shall  cease. 

XLVII.  Does  he  not  say  that  such  pro- 
phecying,  such  knowledge  was  partial, 
when  given  by  the  exercise  of  these  spir- 
itual gifts. 

XLVIII.  Does  not  he  mean  that  such  ut- 
terance, in  each  instance,  can  only  be  part 
the  word  of  God,  a  part  of  revelation. 

XLIX.  Does  not  he  say  when  that  which 
is  perfect  is  come,  then  partial  revelation 
under  spiritual  gifts  shall  pass  away? 

Is  not  that  which  is  perfect  complete 
revelation  ?  If  the  partial  is  a  part  of  God's 
word  is  not  the  perfect  the  whole  of  God's 
word? 

Then  does  not  Paul  declare  that  when 
God's  word  is  perfected,  these  partial  pro- 
phecies, revelations  and  miracles  to  attest 
them  shall  cease? 

Did  not  the  apostles  complete  God 's  word  ? 

Did  not  revelations,  iuspiration,  and 
miracles  cease  then  ? 

Has  Mormonism  given  one  new  idea?  A 
better  expression,  a  single  idea. 


MR.  KELLEY'S   SIXTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GKNTL.KMEN  : — It  seems  that  my  opponent 
got  so  worked  up  on  last  evening  that  he 
has  not  yet  descended  from  that  high  horse 
of  Ahasueras.  The  trouble  with  him  is, 
that  under  the  soured  state  of  his  feelings 
he  concludes  there  is  more  argument  in  the 
use  of  mean  terms  and  unbecoming  expres- 
sions than  in  a  true  and  manly  way  of  de- 
bate 

How  ridiculous  for  a  man  to  come  before 
an  audience  with  the  name  and  reputation 
of  a  clergyman,  debater  and  logician,  and 
to  then  have  him  employ  the  means  of  slan- 
der, vituperation,  and  expressions  without 
meaning  to  meet  his  opponent.  Here  on 
his  own  question  he  has  left  entirely  the 
issue  and  °:one  back  to  his  pet  theory  of 
howling  -'Joe  Smith,"  "Impostor"'  "Mor- 
mon Deity,"  ''great  fraud,"  "blacklegs," 
"rascals,"  "villains,"  "scoundrels,"  etc. 


Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  he  Is  quite 
welcome  to  all  the  argument  there  is  in 
those  terms,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I 
could,  had  I  the  disposition,  answer  him 
very  effectually  by  returning  the  fire  with 
like  polite  and  refined  language;  but  I  will 
say  here  that  I  shall  not  so  lower  my  stand- 
ing as  a  minister,  nor  the  great  cause  of 
Christ's  truth  which  I  represent,  by  de- 
scending to  any  such  plane.  (Applause.) 

The  first  points  discussed  by  my  opponent 
I  shall  take  up  and  answer  fn  their  place. 
But  all  of  that  relating  to  Sidney  Kigdon 
and  what  Braden  calls  Morraonism,  I  shall 
pay  no  attention  to,  it  being  in  no  sense 
connected  with  the  question  under  discus- 
sion. 

It  is  the  faith,  doctrines,  practices  and 
organization  of  Braden 's.  or  the  Campbell- 
ite  church  that  is  under  consideration  now, 
and  I  shall  not  be  drawn  away  from  the 


272 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ques  Ion  before  you,  whatever  the  disposi- 
tion jr  the  other  side,  but  proceed  to  show 
tha'  his  little  building  is  upon  a  sandy 
fou  idarion.  After  first  concluding  the  line 
of  trgument  which  I  was  upon  last  eveu- 
in •;,  I  shall  take  up  and  examine  partieu- 
1?  ly  his  positions. 

L  had  just  introduced  the  text,  "And  yet 
f  iow  I  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way." — 
i  Cor.  12:31.  Paul  at  the  time  of  using  this 
iad  just  devoted  a  whole  chapter  to  de- 
jcribing  the  church,  its  officers,  how  they 
were  placed  in  the  church,  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  and  the  manner  in  which  the  Spirit 
was  manifest,  together  with  the  object  of 
luch  manifestations.  When  through  with 
ill  of  this  labor,  was  he  ready,  as  Braden 
nrould  have  you  believe,  to  tell  them  in  the 
eery  last  verse  of  the  chapter  that  there 
was  another  and  better  system  than  that 
which  he  had  just  been'pointing  out  to 
them,  "  a  more  excellent  way  ?"  Why  did 
he  point  out  the  one  not  so  good  .instead  of 
this  ''more  excellent?"  and,  what  is  stranger 
still,  he  never  in  a  single  epistle  after- 
ward set  forth  a  different  order  than  the 
one  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  12.  Then  where  is 
the  trouble?  The  whole  difficulty  is  with 
the  interpretation  of  Mr.  Braden  himself. 
In  his  great  anxiety  to  do  away  with  the 
order  of  the  church  established  by  Christ, 
and  at  the  same  time  endeavor  to  make  the 
people  believe  that  it  was  restored  by  Mr. 
A.  Campbell  and  aids  of  which  he  is  a  rep- 
resentative, he  explains  that  the  apostle 
•would  give  them  another  order.  If  the  or- 
der specified  in  the  New  Testament  was 
limited,  and  some  other  system  was  to  take 
its  place,  when  did  the  old  lose  its  force? 
Was  it  in  the  year  70,  90,  100,  150,  or  when? 
When  did  the  new  order  begin?  Where  is 
its  constitution  and  order,  and  what  right 
has  Mr.  Campbell  to  be  harping  that  they 
are  standing  on  the  old  constitution,  when 
they  refuse  to  build  by  its  provisions?  But 
what  did  Paul  mean  by  "yet  show  I  unto 
you  a  more  excellent  way?" 

I  shall  here  particularly  examine  this,  the 
81st  verse  of  the  l'2th  chapter  of  the  Corin- 
thian letter  that  has  given  my  opponent  an 
imaginary  covering  at  every  step  of  this  in- 
vestigation, when  he  has  been  brought  into 
the  light  of  God's  word  as  reflected  from 
every  part  of  the  New  Testament.  Is  it  a 
fact,  my  friends,  that,  notwithstanding  the 
promises  made  by  Jesus  and  John  that  "ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
many  days  hence."  and  that  due  prepara- 
tion for  tne  reception  of  this  out-pouring  of 
the  Spirit  had  to  be  made  before  it  could  be 
received,  of  "prepare  ye  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  make  his  paths  straight,"  and  that 
afterwards  it  was.  the  embodiment  of  the 
promise  which  Jesus  made  to  his  followers 
o<  the  Comforter  that  should  be  in  his  stead 
personally,  to  them  who  loved  him,  that 
those  who  received  it  were  made  no  better 
thereby?  Brought  no  closer  to  him  who  is 
the  head  of  the  church  and  raised  no  higher 
in  the  advancing  plane  of  the  divine  life? 

Do  you  accept  Braden 's  proposition  as 
sound  wherein  he  represents  that  the  pres- 


ence of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  power  has  not 
a  tendency  to  make  men  better?  That  it  is 
not  a  moral  agent  or  such  an  agency  that 
acts  upon  men  so  as  to  build  up  and  main- 
tain a  true  character  and  expurge  the  evil? 
This  cherished  position  of  his  I  shall  try 
and  notice  minutely  and  strip  it  of  its  de- 
formity; for  throughout  the  discussion  of 
these  questions  he  has  taken  the  position 
that  where  there  was  an  absence  of  all  the 
manifestations  of  the  Spiritof  God,  and  con- 
sequently the  immediate  presence  of  divine 
instruction,  that  there,  was  the  higher 
Christianity  and  the  greater  Gospel  light. 

According  to  this  the  disciples  before 
Pentecost  were  better  Christians  than  after; 
because  they  had  not  the«comf<>rter,  and 
consequently  these  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  they  had  afterwards.  Down  at  Samaria 
where  Philip  had  preached  the  word  and 
they  who  believed  him  had  been  baptized 
by  water,  and  had  great  rejoicing  because 
of  having  found  the  truth,  they  were  pretty 
fair  Christians,  until  Peter  and  John  went 
down  and  laid  their  hands  upon  them  that 
they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost;  but 
upon  this  the  Spirit  ot  God  was  poured  out 
upon  them,  and  they  were  at  once  lowered 
in  the  Christian  scale  and  fit  only  to  be 
classed  with  such  persons  as  the  Corinthian 
church,  the  Latter  Day  Saints  and  the 
negroes,  according  to  Braden.  Afterwards 
the  Lord  tells  Cornelius  to  send  to  Joppa 
for  Peter,  and  that  he  would  receive  good 
therefrom.  Cornelius  obeys,  sends  for  Peter 
and  when  the  apostle  comes  down  and"  be- 
gins speaking  to  the  people,  the  Holy  Ghost 
falls  upon  them  and  they  begin  to  speak 
with  tongues  and  magnify  God.  Here  the 
Spirit  of  God,  according  to  my  opponent's 
talk  (I  will  not  call  it  argument)  lowers  the 
household  of  Cornelius  in  the  Christian 
scale  and  they  must  be  classed  along  with 
persons  of  such  a  low  form  of  religion  as  the 
Corinthian  Saints,  or  the  Latter  Day  Saints, 
according  to  Braden.  But  I  proceed.  Paul 
passing  through  the  upper  coasts  comes  to 
Ephesus  ;  he  finds  certain  disciples  ;  he  en- 
quires if  they  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost; 
no,  they  said,  they  had  never  heard  of  such  a 
thing,  they  had  only  heard  the  word,  and  but 
part  of  that.  These  persons  were  in  a  pretty 
high  state  of  church  civilization,  according 
to  Braden  and  Mr.  Campbell.  But  this  im- 
petuous Paul  takes  them  and  baptizes  them. 
They  had  only  gone  through  the  form  of 
baptism  before,  some  person  officiated  who 
had  no  authority,  and  Paul  knew  it,  because 
he  did  not  teach  tha  people  about  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Then  Paul  lays  his 
hands  upon  them  and  the  Holy  Ghost  comes 
down  on  them,  "and  they"  spake  with 
tongues  and  prophesied.1'  Went  right  back 
to  the  low  ievfll  Mr.  Braden  placed  the  i 'or- 
inthian  and  Mormon  churches.  Again 
Jesu.s  is  resurrected;  ascends  in  to  the  heavens 
far  above  all.  What  does  he  do?  "And 
(he)  gave  gifts  unto  men,"  "And  he  gave 
some  apostles,  and  some  prophets  and  some 
evangelist*  and  some  pastors  and  teachers, 
for  the  perfecting  ot  the  saints,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


273 


[church]  of  Christ.  Till  we  all  come  into 
the  unity  of  tho  faith  and  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the 
measure  of  tho  stature  of  the  fullness  of 
Christ." 

All  of  these  gifts  were  imparted  to  the 
early  church.  They  are  among  the  gifts 
exercised  by  Uie  Corinthian  church  ;  Jesus 
bestowed  them  as  his  especial  favor  upon 
his  children  after  he  had  gone  into  the 
heavens.  These  were  the  highest  things 
he  could  bestow  upon  his  people  that  were 
calculated  to  make  them  better,  and  not- 
withstanding this,  according  to  Brad  en  and 
Mr.  Campbell,  those  receiving  this  Spirit 
and  gift  wore  placed  by  them  in  such  a  low 
state  of  Christian  attainments,  that  they 
could  never  with  these,  equal  the  exact 
standing  in  Christian  perfection  of  "us  pop- 
ular se^ts  "  of  the  19th  century,  who  cannot 
even  follow  the  injunction,  '"Whatsoever 
ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do 
you  even  so  to  them."  That  rule  was  given 
as  one  of  the  first  things  for  the  early  dis- 
ciples to  pattern  after.  These  things  to 
some  extent  were  the  inevitable  result  of 
the  birth  of  the  Spirit,  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  seal  of  adoption,  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  which  Jesus  referred 
Nicodemus  to,  the  same  bein<*  a  fact,  a 
birth  of  the  Spirit,  a  transition  into  a  new 
and  higher  life,  a  partaking  of  the  nature  of 
thekingdom  that  was  nofmeatanddrink," 
as  some  had  in  Paul's  time  foolishly  sup- 
posed, as  he  says  ;  "  but  righteousness,  and 
peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  Thus 
in  the  3d  of  John,  Jesus  says,  "Except  a 
man  be  horn  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit," 
referring  to  the  complete  birth  by  the  two 
elements,  as  in  the  citation,  "There  are 
three  that  bear  witness  in  earth  :  the  Spirit, 
the  water  and  the  blooii,  and  these  three 
agree  in  one."  Braden  I  know  undertook 
to  explain  this  birth  of  the  water  and 
Spirit  in  John,  but  did  one  of  you  get  hia 
idea?  The  trouble  with  him  was,  that  he 
did  not  understand  it  himself, and  jf  course 
could  not  explain  it  for  others.  He  wanted 
to  get  the  birth  independently  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  this  cannot  be  done.  There  is 
in  Christ's  church  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
as  well  as  of  water.  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence;" 
receive  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
that  shall  fill  them  and  bring  them  in  rap- 
port with  higher  things;  clothe  them  with 
the  new  life  which  Jesus  should  shed  forth; 
hence  become  new  creatures  with  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  new  birth.  Mr.  Braden 
confounds  these  with  "  begotten  by  the 
word,"  as  he  says.  Does  he  mean  to  imply 
a  birth  by  this?  That  here  is  where  they 
are  born  of  the  Spirit?  Are  they  born  of 
the  Spirit  before  they  are  of  th«  water,  Mr. 
Braden?  If  not,  why  are  you  talking  about 
begotten  of  the  word?  It  reads  "born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit." 

Turning  to  the  "more  excellent  way," 
which  Paul  refers  to,  my  opponent  says,  "a 
more  excellent  way  than  thespi  ritual  gifts." 
Here  is  where  he  makes  a  mistake  at  the 
outs  tart.  iSot  a  more  excellent  way  than 


the  spiritual  gifts.  He  confounds  at  once 
the  trueantecedent.  It  is  a  more  excellent 
way  than  one  person  having,  and  exercis- 
ing, all  of  tho  spiritual  gifts.  Read  back 
just  two  verses  :  "Are  all  apostles?  are  all 
prophets  ?  are  all  workers  of  miracles  ?  have 
all  the  gifts  of  healing?  do  all  speak  with 
tongues?  do  all  in  terp-et?"  No;  Paul  has 
shown  a  more  excellent  way  than  this. 
Notice  the  8th,  9th  and  10th  verses  of  the 
same  chapter.  "  For  to  one  is  given  by  the 
same  spirit,  the  word  of  wisdom,  to  another 
the  word  of  knowledge,  by  the  same  spirit ; 
to  another  faith  by  the  same  spirit;  to 
another  the  gifts  or  healing  by  the  same 
spirit,"  etc.  Here  it  is  fully  set  out,  and 
hence,  when  he  repeats  by  interrogatory 
in  the  29th,  and  30th  verses,  as  he  does, 
"are  all  apostles?"  etc.;  and  then  refers 
to  the  "more  excellent  way,"  he  refers  to 
this  one  as  being  of  a  more  excellent  way 
than  that  of  one  person  having  all  of  these 
gifts  which  he  had  already  referred  to  in 
the  8th,  9th  and  10th  verses,  and  not  a 
more  excellent  way  than  the  instruction  by 
the  gifts  themselves.  By  such  an  interpre- 
tation as  Braden  gives,  Paul  is  made  to 
appear  as  teaching  one  thing  at  one  time, 
and  an  adverse  thing  at  another  time  and 
still  a  different  one  at  another.  For  before 
this  Braden  will  not  deny  that  he  taught 
the  use  of  the  gifts  ;  then  he  has  him  teach 
that  they  shall  not  use  them  in  the  13th 
chapter ;  and  afterwards  in  the  14th  chap- 
ter, he  teaches,  "Follow  after  charity  and 
desire  spiritual  gifts  but  rather  that  ye  may 
prophecy."  This  kind  of  an  interpretation 
shakes  up  Paul  considerably  and  places 
Paul  versus  Paul.  But  it  is  not  the  worst 
part  of  it:  it  places  Paul  versus  Jesus,  the 
master  and  head  of  the  church.  Jesus,  when 
he  had  ascended  upon  high,  gave  gifts  unto 
men  ;  but  Paul,  according  to  this  w;ise  inter- 
pretation of  Braden,  was  to  show  them  a 
more  excellent  way  than  this.  Jesus,  before 
he  ascended,  said:  "And  these  signs  shall 
follow  them  that  believe;"  but  Paul  is  to 
show  a  more  excellent  way  than  this.  Peter 
says,  "This,  the  spirit  which  ye  now  see 
and  hear,  he  hath  shed  forth ;  "  but  Paul, 
according  to  the  profound?  interpretation 
of  Braden,  will  show  a  more  excellent  way. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  Braden  can't  give  the 
true  solution  of  this?  Now  let  us  examine 
the  31st  verse.  "And  yet  show  I  unto  you 
a  more  excellent  way.  "Yet,"  is  from  the 
Greek  word  eti,  and  means  still,  hitherto, 
yet,  and  does  not  of  itself  denote  something 
to  follow  in  the  future,  as  notice  examples  : 
"While  he  yet  spake,"  (still  spake),  Mark 
14:43;  "While  the  other  is  yet  a  great 
way  off"  (now  siill,  etc.).  Luke,  15:20, 
"  When  I  was  yet  with  you  "  (  hitherto, 
before  ) ;  2  Thess.,  2  :  5.  Whatever  was 
the  cause  or  may  be  the  reason,  it  is  plain 
there  has  been  a  transposition  of  the  clause 
here,  either  by  tne  transcribers  of  the  origi- 
nal, or  the  English  translators.  Let  me 
read:  "Have  all  the  gifts  of  healing?  do 
all  speak  with  tongues?  do  all  interpret?" 
"Yet,  (still)  I  show  (point  out)  to  you  a 
more  excellent  way,"  lhau  this.  He  had 


274 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  I  EBATE. 


already  in  the  letter,  which  he  was  writing, 
pointed  out  a  better  way  than  all  speaking 
with  the  same  gift,  the  more  excellent  way. 
Hence,  the  instruction  comes,  therefore 
"covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts."  Why? 
Because  Paul  would  show  them  a  better 
way  than  spiritual  gifts  ?  Not  at  all  ;  but 
because  Paul  had  told  them  in  this  letter, 
now,  all  could  not  have  the  same  gift,  but 
that  God  divided  these  lo  them  as  he  would, 
as  they  were  worthy,  and  as  the  Lord  saw 
it  would  be  for  their  good,  and  the  good  of 
his  work.  The  verb  in  the  original  is  not 
in  the  future  tense.  Paul  don't  say,  I 
will  show  you  a  more  excellent  way.  That 
is  made  so  to  read  by  the  translator  into 
the  English.  Now,  let  me  read  to  you 
the  letter  of  Paul  as  he  wrote  it ;  beginning 
with  12th  chapter,  7th  verse  I  read: 

"But  the  manifestation  of  the  spirit  is  given  to  every 
man  to  profit  with  all.  For  to  one  is  given  by  the 
spirit  the  word  of  wisdom;  to  another  the  word  of 
knowledge  by  the  same  spirit :  to  another  faith  by  the 
same  spirit;  to  another  the  gifts  of  healing  by  the 
*anie  spirit;  to  another  the  working  of  miracles;  to 
another  prophecy;  to  another  discerning  of  spirits: 
to  another  diverse  kinds  of  tongues;  to  another  he  In- 
teipretntion  of  tongues.  But  all  these  worketh  that 
self-same  spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he 
will." 

.   Pass  on  now  to  verse  29 : 

"Are  all  apostles?  Are  all  prophets?  Are  all 
teachers?  Areailworkeriofmirac.es?  Have  all  the 
gifts  of  h«aling?  Do  all  speak  with  tongues  ?  Do  all 
interpret?'* 

No: 

"For  (literally)  a  more  excellent  way  I  point  out. 
show." 

Not  in  the  future,  but  now  ;  already  done. 
Hence,  properly  translated : 

'•For  I  have  shown  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way ; 
therefore,  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts." 

This  interpretation  agrees  with  all  that 
Paul  is  at  this  time  writing,  and  that  he 
wrote  at  any  other  time:  &ud  is  the  only  cor- 
rectone.  Wherehad  he  shown  the  moreexcel- 
lent  way?  Answer,  as  set  out  in  the7,8,9, 10, 
11,  '28, 29,  and  30,  verses  of  this  same  chapter. 
Now  read  what  follows  upon  thesame  point 
in  the  14th  chapter,  first  verse: 

"Follow  after  charity  and  desire  spiritual  gifts,  but 
ralher  that  ye  may  propnesy." 

Verses  39  and  40: 

"Therefore,  brethren,  covet  to  prophesy  and  forbid 
not  to  speak  with  tongues.  Let  all  things  be  done 
decently  and  in  order." 

Such  an  interpretation  as  this  harmonizes 
with  all  other  instruction  upon  these  things. 
Il  is  not  a  proper  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
or  any  other  thing,  where  you  make  a  con- 
flict by  the  interpretation,  or  render  a  part 
of  the  instrument  unnecessary  or  void. 
The  rule  is  that  the  entire  word,  teaching, 
shall  have  its  full  force  and  effect  when  it 
can  be  done;  and  if  it  could  not  be  done  in 
Bible  interpretations,  who  would  take  the 
responsibility  of  believing  a  part  was  in 
force  and  not  the.  other  part  also?  The 
sense  and  meaning  of  the  apostle  here  is  as 
clear  as  the  noon-day  sun.  He  is  not  teach- 
ing them  two  or  three  laws  : — good,  belter, 
best;  or  bad,  ill,  worse  ;  but  one  law,  that 
of  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  the  Gospel  law,  and 
he  says  himself,  "Though  we,  or  an  angel 


from  heaven,  teach  any  other  law  than  that 
you  have  received,  let  him  be  accursed."  Is 
it  so  uncertain  that  Paul  himself  was  double- 
tongued  in  teaching  it?  No,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  the  trouble  has  been  in  the  man 
interpretation,  and  as  in  that  verse,  an  at- 
tempt at  interpolation  ;  but  of  this  last  I 
shall  speak  paiticularly  hereafter. 

Now,  I  proceed  to  examine  the  8th  verse  of 
the  13th  chapter.  "Whether  there  be  pro- 
phecies they  shall  fail,  whether  there  be 
tongues  they  shall  cease;  whether  there  be 
knowledge  it  shall  vanish  away."  This  is 
a  prophecy  of  Paul's;  not  instruction  to  the 
saints  at  Corinth,  telling  them  how  they 
shall  do  as  to  prophecy.  To  what  extent  is 
it  and  how  far  does  it  relate?  Does  he  mean 
that  the  time  is  coming  when  we  shall  have 
no  more  prophecies,  no  more  knowledge, 
no  more  languages  (tongues),  through 
which  we  are  to  be  •  able  to  commu- 
nicate thought?  Certainly  not.  What 
does  he  mean  then?  Let  Paul  answer; 
he  is  the  one  that  uses  the  language 
and  the  proper  one  to  explain  it.  He  says, 
(verse  9),  "For  we  know  in  part  and  we 
prophesy  in  part,  but  when  that  which  is 
perfect  is  come,  then  that  which  is  in  part 
shall  be  done  away."  What  shall  be  done 
away?  Paul  answers,  "That  whicU  is  in 
part."  How?  By  us  having  less  proph- 
ecies, less  knowledge,  less  power  to  speak 
with  different  tongues  than  now  ?  No,  no. 
By  ushering  in  the  perfect  time  "when  we 
shall  see  as  we  are  seen,  and  know  as  we 
are  known  ;  "  and  hence,  the  seeing  in  part 
and  knowing  in  part  is  done  away.  Being 
brought  to  the  state  of  positive  knowledge 
and,  like  Jesus,  understanding  all  things, 
that  which  was  miraculous  an<l  revealed 
only  in  part  shall  fail,  cease,  vanish  away; 
whether  in  prophecy,  knowledge  01  speak- 
ing in  tongues  ;  hence  he  says  :  "For  now 
we  see  through  a  glass  darkly  ;  but  then 
face  to  face.  Now  I  know  in  part  " 

Yes,  Paul  knew  only  in  part,  although  he 
had  been  taught  by  the  revelations  direct  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  had  been  in  the  third  heav- 
en, in  the  Paradise  of  God.  He  knew  about 
things  that  had  been  hidden  from  the  found- 
ation of  the  world,  and  of  the  future  -*ud 
final  state  of  the  church,  even  things  un- 
lawful to  utter;  yet  he  still  knew  buc  in 
part,  but  he  says  :  "  Then,  when  that  which 
is  perfect  (perfect  now,  but  to  corne)  is  come, 
then  shall  I  know  even  as  also  I  am  known." 
What  time  is  it,  that  is  the  perfect  time? 
Turn  to  1  John  3:2:  "Beloved,  now  are  we 
the  sons  of  God  (Paul  was  this,  too,  when 
he  was  talking),  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear 
what  we  shall  be:  bufc  we  know  that  when 
he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him ;  for 
we  shall  see  him  as  h«  is."  Here  is  the 
same  time  Paul  referred  to  when  he  should 
see  him  (Jesus)  as  he  is,  in  the  perfect  time. 
This  time  John  places  at  his  second  coming. 
It  is  then  that  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord 
shall  cover  the  earth  as  the  water  does  the 
great  deep.  "And  all  shall  know  him  from 
the  least  unto  the  greatest."  Not  that  all 
knowledge  shall  be  done  away,  but  a  full- 
ness of  knowledge  arrived  at,  and  part 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


275 


xhv>«r ledge  shall  have  ceased;  because  we 
ahull  see  and  know  fully  as  we  are  seen  and 
known.  This  agrees  exactly  with  the  time 
and  evei'tas  fixed  by  Paul  in  Eph.  4: 13  for 
the  continuation  of  these  spiritual  gifts: 
"Till  we  all  come  into  the  unity  of  the  faith 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God 
unto  a  perfect  man  [no  man  is  perfect  now, 
neither  the  church]  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ."  The 
apostle  is  in  harmony  throughout  with  him- 
eelf — not  a  single  contradiction  nor  disa- 
greement ;  but  it  is  clearly  contrary  to  what 
my  opponent  teaches,  ali  of  it.  Can  it  be 
*aid,  then,  his  church  is  after  the  apostolic 
pattern?  It  is  far  short  of  it,  Mr.  Braden. 

Paul  is  consistent  in  his  teaching,  then. 
In  the  i-tii  chapter  of  this  letter  he  teaches 
them  theui-eand  benefit  of  these  spiritual 
gifts.  In  the  13th  he  teaches  them  that  the 
miraculous  effects  of  this  Spirit  to  them 
will  not  cease  till  the  "perfect"  time  shall 
arrive,  when  Jesus  shall  come  the  second 
time,.  In  the  14th  chapter  he  teaches  them 
to  follow  after  them  ;  desire,  ''covet"  them, 
and  to  forbid  not  their  exercise.  It  is  all 
the  time  the  straight  and  narrow  way. 

But  again,  Braden  says:  "There  were 
some  features  in  the  apostolic  church  not 
in  theirs."  That  is  true,  there  was  ;  and  a 
great  many  of  them  at  that.  He  says  also 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  revealed  through 
the  word,  but  the  word  is  the  result  of  the 
moving  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  a  person, 
and  not  a  medium  through  which  it  is  com- 
municated. The  word  simply  expresses  its 
will,  and  to  a  bad  man  just  the  same  as  a 
good  one.  How  terribly  mixed  indeed  are 
his  positions.  Again  he  says,  "  desire  spir- 
itual gifts  as  long  as  they  were  to  remain 
in  the  chur.oh."  The  constitution  of  the 
church  provides  that  they  shall  remain 
aiways,  so  far  as  the  present  condition  of 
man  is  concerned,  till  "that  which  is  perfect 
is  come."  To  destroy  it  is  to  take  away 
the  citizen's  rigrn)  and  destroy  the  force  of 
the  constitution.  Where  is  there  a  consti- 
tution authorizing  a  better  way?  He  says 
there  is  an  "indwelling  Holy  Ghost," 'in 
contradiction  to  tho  miraculous  Holy  Ghost, 
yet  the  scripture  knows  but  one.  *The  in- 
dwelling wa^  the  miraculous ;  and  Jesus 
says,  "It  shall  be  in  you  as  a  well  of  water 
springing  up  into  everlasting  life." 

David  says,  "My  heart  was  hot  within 
me,  while  I  was  musing  the  fire  burned; 
then  spake  I  with  my  tongue."  Ps.  89:3. 
"The  Holy  G host  and  tire"  was  promised. 
The  Holy  Spirit  was  in  them  as  a  flame, 
and  it  expressed  itself  in  tongues,  prophecy 
a  id  w  s  lorn  as  God  willed  and  cheered 
i he  biessed  soul  in  which  it  glowed.  This 
is  the  Spirit  as  promised  and  sent  down 
from  heaven.  Again  he  says,  "Ananias 
was  a  special  apostle."  But  who  says  he 
•was  any  more  special  than  any  of  the  others 
not  apostles?  Oh,  Mr.  Braden,  that  is  all. 
He  is  great  to  divide  and  subdivide.  He 
has  general  apostles  and  special  apostles; 
miraculous  Holy  Spirit,  indwelling  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  word  and  as 
111  the  previous  discussion,  the  one  Unit 


moved  on  Balaam's  ass.  Yet  the  Scripture 
only  speaks  of  one.  But  why  does  he  say, 
without  the  least  authority,  that  Ananias 
was  a  "special  apostle?"  Just  because  he 
has  asserted  that  no  one  ever  received  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  only  thoseon  whom 
apostles  laid  their  hands,  and  it  was  shown 
that  Ananias  laid  hands  on  Paul  for  the 
receiving  of  the  Spirit,  and  Mr.  Braden  at 
once  announces:  "He  was  a  special  apostle;" 
without  the  least  authority  tor  it ;  a  sheer 
dodge.  But  the  body  of  elders  laid  handa 
on  Timothy  and  it  was  an  act  of  presump- 
tion if  they  did  not  have  authority  to  do  it, 
and  under  their  hands  he  received  a  gift. 
It  does  not  say  that  Paul  laid  on  hands  with 
them,  neither  does  it  say  that  the  gift  that 
Timothy  received  under  the  hands  of  the 
elders  was  the  same  one  that  he  received 
under  Paul's  hands.  So  we  have  a  number 
of  elders  here,  "special  apostles,  I  sup- 
pose," to  also  accommodate  Mr.  Braden. 
He  is  not  quite  as  wiley  as  some  others  of 
the  Campbellite  "restored  elders"  that  I 
have  seen  take  positions ;  they  have  uni- 
formly said,  "no  one  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  laying  on  hands,  except  those  on 
whom  the  apostles  laid  their  hands  and  the 
ones  on  whom  this  second  party  laid  their 
hands."  By  this  method  they  pushed  the 
enquiry  clear  out  of  New  Testament  times, 
and  could  stand  on  their  assumption  and 
say  that  the  New  Testament  does  not  say 
in  so  many  words  that  any  others  ever  re- 
ceived it;  and  about  that  time  they  get 
oblivious  to  all  church  history,  as  does  my 
opponent  on  the  question  of  the  laying  on 
of  hands.  He  says,  "that  those  that  went 
put  from  Jerusalem  preached  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  New  Testament."  But  the  New 
Testament  did  not  exist  for  two  hundred 
years  only  in  scattered  fragments.  Paul 
and  Barnabas  went  out  from  Jerusalem  and 
was  completely  authorized  on  the  way  at 
Antioch,  not  by  the  New  Testament,  but 
by  a  divine  call  and  ordination,  the  only 
way  that  any  one  was  ever  authorized  to 
preach.  "How  can  they  preach  except  they 
be  sent?"  Not  by  an  assumptive  congre- 
gation, but  by  the  Almighty. 

He  says,  I  confound  "  Indwelling  of  the 
Spirit  with  the  miraculous."  There  is  but 
o.ie  ;  the  Holy  Ghost  in  any  f.rai  is  miracu- 
lous, whether  manifest  in  tongues,  01  pro- 
phecy, or  acting  like  aglow  of  fire  in  the  heart 
and  soul  of  the  saints,  to  con  firm  and  encour- 
age them  to  strive  on.  But  he  says  again, 
"Aftei  God  had  authenticated  his  word,  mi- 
racles ceased.  The  authentication  belonged 
to  all  believers.  "Grieve  not  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  which  you  (the  believers)  are 
sealed  to  the  day  of  redemption."  Mr. 
Braden  would  have  it,  if  the  Christian 
wishes  confirmation  now  and  sealing,  he 
must  read  an  account  of  something  that 
to  place  near  two  thousand  years  ago  ;  the 
Christian  enjoyed  the  spirit  and  was  sealed 
and  that  this  must  be  all  satisfactory  to 
him.  Might  as  well  conclude  that  when 
Christians  are  hungry  in  this  age  if  thejf 
will  but  sit  down  and  read  that  Paul  and 
Peter  and  others  of  the  saints  of  their  day, 


278 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ate  a  good  square  meal  on  some  occasion,  it 
will  lie  all  satisfactory  ;  that  the  Christian 
now  does  not  need  any  real  food,  but  to  read 
an  old  account  of  some  one  else's  eating  will 
ease  the  gnawing  of  hunger.  Again  he 
Bays,  "I  would  have  Christ  standing  by 
me  ready  to  whack  on  the  seal."  It  is 
poorly  expressed  ;  but  the  meaning  is  clear. 
I  do  believe  that  Jesus  should  be  with  his 
ministry  and  people.  He  says  to  hissent,his 
ministers  :  "Lo,  lam  with  you  always,  even 
to  the  end  of  the  world."  Evidently  ready 
and  quite  willing,  to  "whack  on  the  seal." 
To  the  believer  he  says,  "Where  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  my  name  there  am 
I  in  the  midst  of  them."  Just  as  every 
foreigner,  when  he  is  made  a  citizen  in  our 
government,  must  have  his  own  certificate, 
and  evidence  of  adoption,  and  this  made  un- 
der the  hand  and  seal  of  the  proper  officer, 
BO  must  every  new  addition  to  the  church 
of  Christ,  receive  the  seal  of  the  spirit,  to 
confirm  them.  Their  bodies  are  to  be  tem- 
ples for  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  hence,  the  church  b<  conies  a  habita- 
tion of  God  through  the  spirit.  "And  they 
are  no  longer  foreigners  nor  aliens  but  fellow 
citizens  with  the  saints."  When  I  ask  for 
his  authority,  or  that  of  Mr.  Campbell,  to 
institute  and  organize  a  church,  he  answers 
me  with,  "We  are  all  kings  and  priests 
made  so  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  don't  need 
any  more  authority  than  that."  Then  I 
ask,  "If  all  are  thus  kings  and  priests  and 
have  this  inherent  authority  to  act,  why  is 
he  calling  Joseph  Smith  a  fraud,  and  say- 
ing he  "presumed  to  preach?"  If  all  have 
this  authority  one  has  as  good  a  right  as 
another,  and  Joseph  Smith  as  much  right 
to  organize  a  church  and  preach  as  Mr. 
Campbell  by  his  own  admission.  Mr.  Bra- 
den  is  lost  here,  and  he  knows  it.  He  dare 
not  undertake  to  pointout  to  you  any  author- 
ity for  Mr.  Campbell  to  start  out  preaching 
upon,  and  organizing  churches,  than  he 
must  admit  that  both  he  and  I  have.  Yet,  he 
talks  about  impostors.  He  is  as  wild  and  ex- 
cited over  this,  as  he  was  last  evening  when 
he  broke  out  to  me,  "Paul  I  know,  and 
Jesus  I  know,  but  who  are  you?  Who  is 
Kelley  ?"  Now,  my  friends,  I  like  to  see  a 
man  quote  scripture,  but  when  he  has  to 
take  up  and  quote  what  the  devils  said  for 
scri  pture,  I  take  it  he  is  pretty  hard  pressed. 
(Applause). 

It  reminds  me  of  the  old  lady  who  was  a 
yrreat  lover  of  the  Bible.  A  new  son  came 
to  the  family  and  she  was  bound  to  christen 
It  with  a  Bible  name.  Finally  she  could 
select  upon  no  other,  (there  was  already  a 
large  family  who  had  been  named  out  of  the 
Bible,)  when  she  thought  of  "Beelzebub." 
She  was  at  once  delighted,  and  they  called 
him  Beelzebub.  Again  he  takes  up  the 
Constitutional  Convention  argument,  and 
tries  to  make  out  that  the  case  of  these 
apostles,  who  were  set  in  the  church,  is  a 
parallel  one  to  the  delegates  in  the  Conven- 
tion. He  is  determined  to  make  them  out 
the  lawmakers  if  he  can,  instead  of  leaving 
that  work  to  Jehovah.  Anything  to  defeat 
the  purpose  for  which  they  were,  in  fact, 


placed  in  the  church  as  they  give  it  them- 
selves. "For  the  work  of  the  ministry,  the 
perfecting  of  the  saints  ;  for  the  edifying  of 
tlje  body  of  Christ."  But  a  moment's  re- 
flection will  show  the  absurdity  of  his 
reasoning.  The  framers  of  the  constitution 
were  not  officers  in  the  government  under 
the  constitution  without  being  placed  there 
afterwards.  The  apostles  were  officers  in 
the  church.  "God  set  in  the  church  first 
apostles,  secondly  prophets  ;"  and  then  fol- 
lows the  other  officers.  Not  so  in  the  Con- 
vention that  framed  the  constitution.  They 
were  delegates  who  met  to  formulate  a  new 
and  better  system  of  government,  and  when 
their  work  was  done  they  were  done,  so  far 
as  officers  in  the  incoming  government  was 
concerned,  unless  again  made  such .  Wash- 
ington was  a  delegate  and  afterwards  set, 
elected  as  an  officer  in  the  government  and 
made  President;  as  apostles  were  set  in  the 
church  away  back  by  Jesus.  If  you  take 
the  ground  that  the  apostles  were  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution,  and  that  took 
effect  and  the  new  government,  after  they 
had  done  their  work, — died, — then  th>  were 
never  in  the  church,  and  what  becomes  of 
Braden's  dead  apostles  which  h<-  claimed 
were  in  his  church  ?  If  you  take  the  ground 
that  they  were  in  the  church  as  officers  as 
they  were,  then  they  were  not  in  a  delegate 
capacity,  but  in  a  similar  position  to  hat 
Washington  occupied  during  his  Presidency 
in  the  government.  Hence,  the  true  like- 
ness of  the  officers  in  the  church  is  not  found 
in  the  fram.ers  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  but  in  the  officer?  in  the 
government  of  the  United  States;  and  the 
true  Constitutional  maker  of  the  church  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  God  and  Father  of  all 
I  shall  not  permit  my  opjwjnent  to  reason 
Him  out  of  existence.  When  Jesus  sent  hi* 
disciples  out  to  teach,  he  told  them  to  teach 
whatsoever  he  had  commanded  them.  H& 
did  not  send  them  out  making  constitution* 
He  would  not  do  that  himself;  but  said: 
"I  have  not  spoken  of  myself ;  but  the  Father 
which  sent  me,  he  gave  me)  a  command- 
ment, what  I  should  say  and  what  I  should 
speak."  Hence  hecomjnanded  his  disciples 
— the  officers  under  him  :  "Go  ye  therefore 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  Ihavecomtnandfdyou." 
Matt.  28: 19-20.  He  did  not  send  them  out 
then,  "making  constitution  every  day," 
did  he?  This  brings  to  my  mind  another 
point.  "Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the- 
Father,"  etc.  Now  Braden's  church  bap- 
tizes into  the  name,  instead  of  "?'/?  the  name 
of,"  for  the  reason,  I  understand,  that  they 
have  no  right  to  use  the  name,  having  no- 
especial  authority  to  baptize.  Aiu  I  not 
right  in  this? 

My  opponent  tries  to  cover  himself  first,, 
and  associates  in  his  church  secondly,  with 
glory,  and  says,  "they  are  the  only  minis- 
ters who  have  been  ablo  to  meet  our 
people."  At  the  same  time  he  is  the  h'r^t 
of  his  church  I  have  ever  met  \»  ho  ti  i<-d  to 
stand  tire,  while  I  have  debated  witi-  a- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


277 


number  of  ministers  of  other  persuasion?. 
It  won't  do  for  him  to  assume  quite  so  much 
nor  to  think  he  is  getting  along,  because  he 
denies  all  work  and  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  church.  Why?  "This  belief 
in  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  lead  a 
man  into  polygamy,"  he  says.  How  will  it? 
If  a  man  follows  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  do  you  say,  he  will  land  in  polygamy? 
If  so,  that  would  make  polygamy  right. 
It  will  "guide  into  all  truth,"  Jesus  said. 

Braden  seems  to  be  upon  the  Brighamite 
fence  here,  and  claims  it  will  lead  a  man 
into  polygamy.  I  say  it  will  lead  him  into 
nothing  of  the  kind.  By  this  same  Spirit 
came  the  teaching  of  monogomy.  Would  it 
turn  around  and  teach  polygamy  next? 
But,  says  Braden,  the  people  professing  to 
be  guided  by  it  would  be  deceived  and  led 
into  polygamy.  Why  would  they  be  de- 
ceived? 'The  moment  the  governing  spirit 
of  the  individual  taught  anything  contrary 
to  that  already  taught,  the  person  must 
know  that  it  is  not  the  right  spirit.  We 
are  comma  oded  to  not  only  "worship  in 
Spirit,  but  in  truth."  This  reference  to 
truth  shows  that  theiSpiritual  direction,  to 
be  of  God,  must  agree  with  that  which 
is  already  written.  Is  there  in  fact,  then, 
this  dangei  Braden  speaks  of?  Not  at  all. 
If  a  man's  spiritual  direction  is  contrary  to 
that  already  given,  it  is  of  the  evil  one  and 
not  the  good  spirit.  Hence  Paul  says,  "If 
any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or 
spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  tho 
things  that  I  write  are  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord."  What  shall  we  do,  then  ; 
get  along  without  the  Spirit?  No;  for  with- 
out this  Spirit  we  cannot  be  guided  into  the 
truth  This  is  to  guide  intoall  truth.  There- 
fore Paul  says:  "  For  as  many  as  are  led  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  they  are  the  Sons  of  God." 

Ah!  here  is  the  secret,  then;  we  must 
have  both  the  Spirit  and  the  truth.  But 
Braden  will  not  have  the  Spirit,  hence  he 
cannot  have  the  truth,  and  this  is  the  secret 
cause  why  he  is  found  so  universally  at  . 
variance  wi't  the  Bible. 


Again,  upon  this  profound  logic  of  his, 
that  the  basis  of  polygamy  is  a  belief  in  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  builds  his  false 
castles  and  says  :  "This  is  the  reason  Joseph 
Smith  was  in  polygamy  here  in  Kirtland." 
etc  But  both  basis  and  conclusion  is  false. 
Joseph  Smith  was  never  in  polygamy  while 
here  in  Kirtland  ;  no  well  informed  man  of 
any  party  who  regards  the  truth  at  all.  will 
claim  that.  Those  of  the  polygamic  church, 
in  Utah,  denounce  the  claim  as  entirely 
false.  No  well  informed  man  among  them 
claims  that  polygamy  was  ever  intimated 
or  believed  in  by  any  man  in  the  church  for 
five  years  after  the  Saints  left  K;rtiand. 
This  is  wholly  without  any  truthful  basis. 
Joseph  Smith  was  never  in  polygamy  and 
never  had  but  one  wife  1  am,  as  I  before 
stated  upon  this  stand,  willing  to  negative 
the  ques-tion,  that  he  was  not,  upon  any 
platform  and  against  any  man,  either  out  of, 
or  in  Utah. 

But  Braden  can  talk  to  try  to  prejudice 
his  case  through  with  this  audience.  Why 
is  ho  not  willing  to  affirm  the  proposition 
with  me  that  Mr.  Smith  was  a  polygamist, 
if  ho  knows  so  much?  I  am  ready  to  meet 
him  upon  it.  But  the  belief  in  the  insp. ra- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  lead  men  into 
polygamy  and  other  crime,  he  says.  Jesus 
and  Peter  and  John  and  all  of  the  apostles 
believed  in  it  and  were  led  by  it.  Did  it 
lead  them  into  polygamy  or  other  crime? 
Did  Paul's  belief  in  the  present  direction 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  lead  him  into  wrong 
doing?  Remember.  Braden  »  claim  is  that 
a  belief  in  the  immediate  direction  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  will  lead  men  into  these  things. 
If  so,  why  did  it  not  lead  the  early  Saints 
into  these  things?  They  believed  in  the 
present  and  immediate  direction  of  t  he  Ho!y 
Spirit.  My  opponent's  charge  is  not  true. 
Neither  as  to  the  Latter  Day  Saints  nor  as 
to  others  who  believed  in  the  immediate 
power  and  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
an  essential  thing  in  the  church. 

(Time  called) 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S  SEVENTH  SPEECH. 


MODERATORS,  1/ADIKS    AND 

GENTLEMEN: — My  opponent  spent  much 
time  last  night  jabbering  about  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's authority  to  organize  churches  after 
the  apostolic  pattern,  baptize  and  breach. 
We  showed  him  that  every  child  of  God  is 
a  king,  a  priest,  made  a  royal  priest  by  God 
himself.  Such  persons  have  a  divine  com- 
mission to  preach,  baptize,  and  do  any  and 
all  acts  required  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
The  members,  all  of  them  who  were  driven 
out  of  Jerusalem,  went  everywhere  preach- 
ing the  word.  Aquilla  and  Priscilla  in- 
structed Apollos,  taught,  preached,  and 
had  a  church  iu  their  house,  without  any 
pretended  commission  from  any  Joe  Smith 
of  their  day.  As  kings  and  priests  by  the 
act  of  the  Almighty,  they  had  their  author- 
ity direct  from  heaven  and  not  from  the 
hands  of  any  one.  It  required  miraculous 
power  to  do  the  work  that  the  public  work- 
ers in  the  church  did  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  It  took  miraculous  power  in  cre- 
ation to  bring  animals  and  plants  into  be- 
ing, but  it  does  not  now,  when  the  law  of 
God  is  that  they  shall  come  into  being  by 
process  of  natural  law.  It  required  mirac- 
ulous power  to  give  the  word  of  God 
and  attest  its  inspiration.  It  does  not  re- 
quire miraculous  power  now  when  it  is  com- 
plete, to  use  it  and  obey  it.  Wedo  not  deny 
a  divine  call.  We  believe  God  has  called 
us  and  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  him- 
self. If  my  opponent's  church  is  the  church 
of  Christ,  all  are  kings  and  priests  by  God's 
acts,  and  not  by  the  act  of  Joe  Smith  or  any 
other  impostor.  I  call  Joe  an  impostor 
because  he  pretended  to  be  what  the  Bible 
declares  he  could  not  be.  If  a  set  of  men 
were  to  set  themselves  up  as  a  constitutional 
convention  I  would  call  them  impostors, 
because  the  people  had  not  called  them  to 
any  such  work. 

Let  us  now  examine  New  Testament  his- 
tory for  a  few  minutes.  After  revelations 
ceased  with  Malachi,  the  Israelites  were 
under  the  written  word  of  God,  in  the  Old 
Testament.  John  the  Baptist  preached 
unto  them  repentance  toward  God,  and  an- 
nounced unto  them  the  coming  of  the  Mes- 
siah. Jesus  came,  preached  and  instructed 
his  apostles  to  prepare  them  for  the  work 
they  were  to  do  after  his  departure.  Joel, 
John  and  Jesus  promised  that  the  most 
complete  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
ever  given  to  men  should  usher  in  the  per- 
fect dispensation.  Jesus  promised  theCom- 
lorter  to  his  apostles  to  do  for  them  what 
he  had  done  while  with  them  ;  that  they 
should  be  endued  with  power,  by  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whichshould  usher 
in  his  kingdom  with  power.  Jesus  abro- 
gated to  Mosaic  dispensation  by  his  death. 
The  apostles  began  the  work  of  building 
tiie  church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  They 
preached  and  baptized  persons  into  Christ. 


They  had  their  converts,  met  as  Christian- 
worshiping  assemblies.  So  long  as  the  con- 
gregations were  not  too  numerous,  the  apos- 
tles took  personal  charge  of  them  and 
taught  tnem.  They  did  not  organize  them 
fully  at  fiast,  but  took  charge  of  them  them- 
selves. There  was  not  a  perfectly  organized 
congregation  until  long  years  after  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  The  Old  Testament  had 
ceased  to  be  a  complete  word  of  God.  It 
could  not  be  such  to  the  congregations  of 
Christians.  The  apostles  gave  to  the  con- 
gregations the  inspired  teaching  they  need- 
ed. When  congregations  became  so  numer- 
ous that  an  apostle  could  not  be  with  them, 
the  apostles  laid  hands  on  suitable  persons 
and  imparted  to  them  the  spiritual  gifts 
decribed  in  I.  Cor.  xii.  Their  object  was 
three-fold.  I.  To  supply  needed  inspired 
teaching.  II.  To  govern  the  churches. 
III.  To  attest  and  confirm  the  inspiration 
and  teachings  of  these  teachers  and  govern- 
ors. There  is  no  dispute  between  my  oppo- 
nent and  myself  that  these  miraculous  pow- 
ers were  in  the  church  iu  the  days  of  the 
apostles  ;  that  they  were  necessary  then. 

The  issues  are  then,  I.  Was  the  church 
then  a  model?  Was  it  in  the  condition 
that  was  designed  to  be  permanent.  II. 
Does  the  word  of  God  ordain  that  all  that 
was  in  the  church  then,  is  to  remain  always 
in  the  church?  My  opponent  admits  that 
the  New  Testament  is  the  constitution  of 
the  church.  Just  as  the  people  through  state 
legislatures  selected  delegates  to  form  our 
National  constitution,  eo  God,  through 
Christ  selected  the  apostles  to  give  the  con- 
stitution, the  New  Testament,  to  the  church 
and  to  organize  the  church  under  it.  The 
apostles  gave  the  word  of  God  orally  at 
first,  and  organized  churches.  Then  they 
reduced  it  to  writing  and  left  it  in  writing 
with  the  churches  they  had  organized,  un- 
der the  oral  announcement  of  the  constitu- 
tion. God,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  gave 
the  church  every  word  of  the  constitution, 
through  apostles  or  companions  of  the  apos- 
tles. Our  fathers  in  constitutional  conven- 
tion gave  to  the  people  the  constitution. 
They  ruled  the  people  under  the  articles 
of  confederation.  The  people  adopted  the 
constitution  and  organized  a  national  gov- 
ernment under  it.  The  articles  of  Confed- 
eration, the  government  under  them  ceased 
and  the  constitutional  convention  ceased 
when  it  had  done  its  work.  The  people 
now  live  and  act  under  the  constitution. 
They  have  only  such  officers  as  it  ordains  ; 
only  such  officers  as  it  ordains  have  succes- 
sors. Miraculous  power  was  to  give  inspir- 
ed teaching,  or  give  the  constitution,  or  to 
rule  provisionally  the  churches.  It  was 
constitution-making  power.  The  apostles 
were  the  constitutional  convention  of  the 
church.  I  hope  my  opponent  will  not  be 
so  silly  as  to  repeat ;  "  God  gives  the  con- 


THE    BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


279 


stitution  not  the  apostles."  The  people 
through  their  delegates  ordained  our  con- 
stitution. God  through  his  chosen  dele- 
gates ordained  the  constitution  of  the 
church,  the  New  Testament.  The  differ- 
ence between  my  opponent  and  myself  is 
here.  I  believe  that  when  miraculous  power 
had  given  revelation,  the  constitution, 
then  miraculous  power,  constitution  mak- 
ing power  ceased.  He  would  have  consti- 
tution making  power  perpetual  and  the  only 
power  in  the  church.  I  believe  that  wheu 
the  constitution  makers  did  their  work, 
gave  the  constitution,  then  they  ceased  to 
act.  He  would  have  them  perpetual,  and 
the  only  power  in  the  church.  I  believe 
that  the  constitution  makers  perfected  their 
•work.  He  would  have  constitution  making 
goon  forever.  I  believe  that  constitution 
making,  and  the  constitution  makers  pre- 
pared fora  perfect  government  under  the 
constitution,  and  ceased  when  that  the 
perfect  government  was  constituted.  He 
contends  that  constitution  making  and 
constitution  makers  shall  continue  for 
ever  and  never  give  place  to  what  the 
constitution  ordains.  They  are  forever 
preparing,  getting  ready  for  something 
that  never  comes.  The  constitution  pro- 
vides for  constitutional  officers  and  their 
successors,  but  it  does  not  ordain  that  con- 
stitution-making and  constitution-making 
officers  shall  go  on  for  ever.  It  does  not 
provide  for  actual  constitution-making  and 
an  actual  succession  of  constitution  makers. 
Judas  had  a  successor  just  as  a  delegate 
who  dies  while  a  convention  is  in  session 
is  succeeded  by  another  person,  selected  by 
the  people  through  their  legislature.  Paul 
was  the  apostle-  of  the  gentiles  just  as 
Canada  might  have  had  delegates  in  our 
constitutional  convention,  had  their  inde- 
pendence been  acknowledged  and  had  they 
applied  for  union  with  us.  But  no  apostle 
had  a  successor  when  the  constitution  was 
made,  the  New  Testament  was  completed, 
any  more  than  our  constitution  makers 
have  had  successors.  We  can  fill  vacancies 
in  offices  ordered  by  the  constitution,  but 
we  do  not  fill  vacancies  in  constitution- 
making  offices  now,  for  there  are  no  such 
offices.  The  apostles  are  such  officers,  and 
have  no  successors.  We  now  lay  hands  on 
men  to  set  them  apart  to  work  under  the  con- 
stitution, the  New  Testament.  We  do  not 
lay  hands  on  them  to  impart  miraculous 
power,  constitution-making  power,  for  the 
apostles  completed  that  work,  and  we  have 
neither  constitution  making  nor  makers, 
nor  do  we  impart  constitution  making 
power.  The  fallacy  of  my  opponent's  ap- 
plication of  the  many  passages ot  Scriptures 
he  reads,  is  this:  He  reads  of  what  was 
done  by  the  constitution  makers  and  what 
existed  and  was  necessary  before  the  con- 
stitution was  completed,  and  the  church 
completed  under  it,  and  applies  it  to  an 
entirely  different  period,  and  state  of 
affairs,  the  Church  after  the  constitution  is 
completed,  and  the  church  completed  in 
organization  under  it.  It  he  can  show  that 
the  constitution  ordains  that  what  he  reads 


was  to  be  permanent  in  the  church,  he  has 
accomplished  his  object.  Until  hedoes,  his 
reading  is  as  bootless  as  to  read  what  was 
done  under  the  law  of  Moses.  Christ  gave 
apostles,  prophets  and  evangelists,  shep- 
herds and  teachers  with  miraculous  powets, 
during  the  constitution-making  period,  ano 
until  the  constitution  was  made,  for  such 
were  constitution-making  powers.  Bu', 
when  the  constitution  was  made,  such  con- 
stitution-making power  ceased.  Proving 
that  they  existed  before  the  "until"  doe! 
not  prove  that  they  must  exist  after  the 
"until."  Let  him  address  himself  to  the 
last  work.  God  set  in  the  church  the  nina 
miraculous  powers.  Yes,  they  were  con- 
stitution-making powers,  and  he  set  them 
in  the  church  during  that  period  before, 
"  The  more  excellent  way"  when  the  con- 
stitution was  made  had  come.  Let  him 
show  that  the  constitution  makes  them  a 
part  of  the  more  excellent  way.  Then  he 
will  prove  his  point.  God  created  animals 
and  plants  by  miracle,  before  natural  law 
prevailed.  That  does  not  prove  that  he 
does  now.  Because  God  set  miraculous 
powers  in  the  church  before  the  constitution 
was  completed,  as  constitution-making 
powtrs,  it  do.'s  not  prove  that  he  sets  them 
in  the  church  under  the  constitution,  after 
constitution-making  is  no  longer  needed 
A  man  has  guardians  v/hile  a  minor.  That 
does  not  prove  that  he  has  guardians  when 
a  man.  No,  we  reason  that  what  he  needed 
in  his  childhood  has  ceased,  being  no 
longer  needed.  God  set  miraculous  powers 
in  the  church  iu  its  childish  condition. 
When  the  church  became  a  man  it  laid  to 
one  side  such  childish  things,  as  Paul  de- 
clares. My  opponent  claims  that  we  have 
no  prophets  and  apostles  in  our  church. 
The  people  of  the  United  States  have  the 
work  of  the  Conotitutional  Convention  in  the 
Constitution  and  the  government  in  accord- 
ance with  it.  They  do  not  need  to  have  an 
eternal  Constitutional  Convention,  an  *•  ier- 
nal  constitution-. riaking,  to  have  the  work, 
the  Constitution.  Indeed  such  an  attempt 
would  prevent  the  people's  ever  having 
their  work.  It  would  be  like  a  general's 
eternally  organizing  the  army  and  never 
using  it  in  the  work  for  which  all  organizing 
is  done.  We  have  the  apostles  in  our 
church,  just  as  we  have  Christ.  In  the 
constitution  they  gave  us,  in  their  law, 
in  their  work.  Just  as  we  have  our  Con- 
stitutional Convention  in  our  Constitu- 
tion and  the  government  under  it.  My 
.  opponent  grew  witty  over  his  gun  illustra- 
tion. That  gun  will  kick  him  so  that  it 
will  do  naore  harm  at  the  breech  than  it  will 
at  the  muzzle.  The  difference  between  us 
is  this.  I  take  the  gun  just  as  it  came  from 
the  armory  of  heaven  and  use  it.  He  throws 
away  the  gun  and  tries  to  use  Joe  Smith's 
bogus  gun  making  machine,  pretended 
miraculous  power  to  make  another.  I  take 
the  gun  as  it  came  from  the  armory  of 
heaven.  He  substitutes  from  Joe  Smith's 
bogus  gun  factory,  a  new  barrel  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  a  new  stock  in  the  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants,  a  new  lock  in  the 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Hook  of  Abraham,  and  keeps  on  throwing 
away  what  was  manufactured  in  heaven's 
armory  and  putting  in  what  came  from  Joe's 
bog-us  gun  factory  until  he  finishes  with 
a  bran  new  and  appropriate  touch  hole 
in  Joe's  polygamy  revelation.  And  when 
he  is  done,  his  gun  bursts  and  blows 
his  brains  out  and  kicks  his  remains  out 
of  sight.  He  grows  witty  over  nay  quoting 
the  language  of  the  Devil.  Yes,  I  quoted 
it  te  him.  He  regards  it  as  "the  fullness 
of  the  Gospel,"  Smith's  lying  fraud,  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  The  Devil  is  the  father  of 
lies,  and  the  Book  of  Mormon  the  most  mon- 
strous of  his  progeny.  I  concluded  if  he 
valued  so  highly  the  Devil's  work  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  he  would  accept  as  gospel 
a  direct  quotation  from  him.  Since  my  op- 
ponent regards  "Mormon"  as  a  Scriptural 
name,  and  so  precious  a  name,  and  the  word 
means  "a  ghost,"  "a  hobgoblin,"  doubtless 
he  regards  Beelzebub,  the  father  of  Hob- 
goblin's, as  a  choice  Scriptural  name.  I  do 
not.  He  wants  to  know  why  I  say,  baptize 
"into."  I  care  not  whether  in  or  into.  The 
one  baptism  in  the  church  is  in  the  name. 
Holy  Spirit  baptism  is  not.  It  is  not  in  the 
church.  He  has  not  answered  and  dare  not 
answer  our  questions.  Were  the  Samaritans 
children  of  God  before  the  apostles  went 
down  to  them?  Had  they  been  born  of 
God?  Born  of  water  and  the  Spirit?  If 
they  had  not,  did  the  apostle  give  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  sinners,  when  Jesus  says  such  can 
not  receive  him?  He  wants  to  know  why 
the  apostles  imparted  the  miraculous  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  to  the  Samaritans  and 
others.  The  constitution,  the  word  of  God, 
was  not  completed,  and  they  needed  mira- 
culous power  to  supply  inspired  teaching 
until  inspiration  was  completed,  in  the  New 
Testament.  When  inspired  teaching  was 
completed  in  the  New  Testament  such 
power  was  needed  no  longer. 

As  my  opponent  Is  so  good,  his  religion 
makes  him  so  good,  I  dare  not  say  he  wil- 
fully misrepresents  me.  No,  he  is  honest, 
no  doubt.  So  good  a  man  would  never  mis- 
represent me.  I  must  charge  it  to  his  ignor- 
ance and  lack  of  sense  enough  to  under- 
stand me  and  the  word  of  God.  I  have  said 
that  there  are  two  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  one  manifested  in  miraculous  power. 
The  other  manifested  in  moral  power, 
through  the  truth  he  has  revealed.  My 
honest  opponent  in  his  extreme  ignorance 
and  lack  of  ordinary  sense,  says  that  I  say 
there  are  two  Holy  Ghosts,  when  I  never 
used  the  word  "ghost."  Can  you  under- 
stand, sir,  one  Holy  Spirit,  who  has  mani- 
fested himself  in  two  ways,  who  has  influ- 
enced men  in  two  ways  ?  Just  as  a  man 
can  influence  another  by  mesmerising  him, 
or  by  the  truth  he  presents  to  him.  My 
good,  honest,  ignorant  friend  cannot  under- 
stand the  word  of  God  when  it  declares 
"There  are  different  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit."  "There  are  diffeient  operations 
(of  the  Spirit),  but  one  God."  Nor  when 
it  declares  God  bore  the  apostles  witness 
with  manifold  powers  and  distributions  of 
the  Spirit.  He,  honest,  ignorant  soul  that 


he  is,  supposes  that  it  means  different  holy 
ghosts,  manifold  holy  ghosts,  and  his  infi- 
del lackies,  and  Danites  in  the  audience, 
whose  brains  are  in  their  heels  instead  of 
in  their  heads,  stamp,  yell,  whistle,  clap 
and  cheer  such  honest  idiocy. 

I  said  that  the  miraculous  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  not  a  moral  influence  on 
the  one  it  influenced  or  inspired.  I  repeat 
it.  It  was  given  to  wicked  persons  such  as 
Balaam,  Saul,  King  of  Israel,  Caiaphas,  the 
Pharaohs,  the  Abimlechs  of  the  Bible.  It 
left  them  just  as  it  found  them.  Such  was 
the  case  with  all  of  these  parties.  They 
did  not,  while  under  its  influence,  utter, 
what  they  wanted  to  utter.  They  did  not 
often  understand  what  they  had  uttered. 
It  used  them  to  reveal  truth  which  is  God's 
power  unto  salvation,  which  begets,  which 
sanctifies.  I  said  that  the  condition  of  the 
church  while  it  was  dependent  on  the  frag- 
mentary revelations  uttered  by  men  with 
Spiritual  gifts  was  inferior  to  that  state 
when  it  had  the  complete  word  of  God  ;  all 
these  fragments  united  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. So  Paul  declares.  The  condition  of 
a  man  who  has  completed  his  course  of 
study  and  has  the  full  course  in  his  library 
and  head,  is  superior  to  his  condition  when 
his  teachers  were  giving  him  a  fragment  at 
a  time,  no  matter  how  talented  such  teach- 
ers may  have  been.  Here  again  my  honest, 
good  opponent  misunderstood  me.  He  rep- 
resents me  as  teaching  that  the  imparting 
of  Spiritual  power  reduced  persons  to  a 
lower  condition  than  they  vere  in  before 
such  powers  were  imparted.  Poor,  honest, 
ignorant,  good  soul  that  he  is.  How  hia 
ignorance  and  lack  of  sense  is  to  be  pitied; 
but  then  so  good  a  person  must  be  honest 
in  it.  Because  I  claim  that  a  man  who  has 
completed  his  studies  and  is  no  longer  under 
teacher's  supervision,  is  superior  to  hia 
condition  under  teachers,  of  course  I  teach 
that  when  his  parents  took  him  from  his 
condition  before  he  had  teachers,  and  put 
him  under  teachers,  they  put  him  in  a  lower 
condition  than  he  was  before  he  had  any 
teachers.  Because  I  say  that  our  condition 
under  our  completed  constitution  is  better 
than  when  the  constitutional  convention 
was  in  session,  of  course,  I  teach  that  when 
the  people  set  that  convention  to  work,  they 
put  themselves  in  a  much  lower  condition 
than  they  were  in  before  they  set  it  at 
work. 

Because  I  assert  that  the  world  is  In  a 
higher  condition  now,  when  creation  has 
been  completed  and  it  is  under  the  operation 
of  natural  law,  than  when  God  was  bring- 
ing animals  and  plants  into  existence  by 
miracle  or  direct  creation,  of  course  I  teach 
that  when  God  changed  the  world  from 
chaos  to  the  beginning  of  his  course  of  crea- 
tion he  reduced  it  to  an  inferior  condition. 
So  good  a  sonl  as  my  opponent  must  be 
honest  in  all  this.  If  so,  his  stolidity  is  to 
be  pitied.  No  doubt  he  was  honest,  the 
good  soul  that  he  is,  in  representing  me  as 
teaching  that  the  direct  and  immediate  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  led  to  folly,  impurity, 
crime,  and  polygamy.  I  said  that  such  an 


THE  BRADEX  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


281 


rnfluence  was  not  exerted  now — could  not 
be  received  now  ;  that  men  mistook  their 
own  frenzies  for  such  influence,  and  gave 
loose  reins  to  their  heated  frenzies  and  pas- 
sions, and  that  had  given  to  the  world  such 
abominations.  No  doubt  so  good  a  man, 
with  such  a  religious  spirit,  was  honest  in 
thatoutnigeous  falsification  of  my  language. 
I  never  said  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  taught 

Polygamy.  It  does  leave  the  door  open  for 
;.  But,  good,  honest  soul,  he  is  mistaken 
in  that.  I  said  that  a  pretence  to  a  direct 
influence  of  the  spirit  led  to  that  lying  reve- 
lation. 1  said  Ananias  was  a  special  apos- 
tle. An  apostle  is  one  who  is  sent.  Anan- 
ias was  sent  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  do  a 
special  work  If  it  were  his  usual  preroga- 
tive to  impart  the  Holy  Spirit,  why  did  the 
Holy  Spirit  by  miracle  tell  him  that  he 
could  and  should  do  such  a  work?  Ananias 
said,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  has  sent  me  to  you 
thatyou  may  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit." 
I  will  accept  all  cases  of  such  persons  who 
by  miracle  or  direct  revelation  have  been 
sent  to  do  a  certain  work.  Has  he  found 
any  other?  The  very  fact  that  God  had  to 
speak  to  Ananias  and  give  him  authority 
to  do  this  work,  proves  that  none  but  an 
apostle  could  do  it  Paul  declares  that  the 
gift  of  God  that  was  in  Timothy  was  by  the 
laying  of  hands.  He  speaks  of  a  gift  that 
was  in  Timothy  that  was  given  by  proph- 
ecy by  the  laying  on  of  the  lands  of  the 
Presbytery,  if  the  gift  was  different,  Paul 
imparted  the  miraculous  power  and  the 
Presbytery  did  not  impart  any  miraculous 
power,  for  Paul  had  already  done  that. 
They  set  him  apart  to  his  work  as  Saul  and 
Barnabas  were  set  apart. 

We  give  more  proof  that  only  an  apostle 
could  impart  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Galatians,  3-5.  "He  that  supplies  to 
you  the  Spirit,  and  works  powers  in  you, 
does  he  do  it  by  works  of  law,  or  by  the 
message  of  the  faith?"  II  Cor.  '12-12. 
"Truly  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought 
among  you,  in  all  patience  in  signs  and 
•wonders  and  in  mighty  power."  Horn.  15- 
19.  "I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  anything, 
save  these  that  Christ  wrought  through 
me,  for  the  obedience  of  the  Gentiles,  by 
word  and  deed,  in  the  power  of  signs  and 
wonders — in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God." 
Rom  1-11.  For  I  long  to  see  you  that  I  may 
impart  unto  you  some  spiritual  gift  to  the 
end  that  you  may  be  established."  From 
these  Scriptures  we  learn:  I. 'There  were 
those  that  supplied  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
worked  in  the  saints  miraculous  powers. 
II.  That  Paul  or  an  apostle  alone  could  do 
this.  III.  That  the  power  to  impart  these 
spiritual  gifts,  miraculous  powers,  was  the 
eiirn  of  apostleship.  With  this  accords  the 
declaration  in  Acts  viii:  18,  "The  Holy  Spirit 
was  jriven  through  the  laying  on  of  the 
apostle's  hands."  This  declaration,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  through  the 
laying  on  of  the  apostle's  hands  settles  the 
matter.  He  never  was  given  in  any  other 
way. 

We  will  now  move  on  to  the  real  battle- 
ground, Eph.  iv  and  I  Cor.  xii,  xiii.  In 


Eph.  iv  we  read  that  when  Christ  ascended 
he  gave  gifts  unto  men.  We  are  agreed 
that  these  gifts  were  miraculous  powers. 
He  gave  men  to  the  church  to  be  apostles. 
Their  work  required  miraculous  power.  It 
was  constitution-making  work,  and  it  re- 
quired constitution-making  power.  And  he 
gave  some  men  to  the  church  to  be  proph- 
ets. Their  work  was  miraculous.  It  was 
giving  revelations,  uttering  the  ideas  of 
inspiration.  He  gave  men  to  the  church  to 
be  evangelists.  Some  of  the  evangelists,  if 
not  all,  in  that  state  of  the  church  had  mi- 
raculous power.  It  was  needed  in  the  state 
in  which  the  church  was  then.  He  gave 
some  men  to  the  church  to  be  shepherds 
and  teachers.  Some  of  the  shepherds  and 
teachers  of  the  church  in  the  state  it  was 
then  in  had  miraculous  power.  They  were 
needed  in  the  state  the  church  was  then  in. 
These  miraculous  powers  were  given  for 
what  purpose?  "For  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints."  The  saints  were  to  be  perfected 
for  what?  "Unto  the  work  of  ministering." 
They  ministered  for  what?  "Unto  the 
building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the 
church."  The  church  was  to  grow  up  in 
all  things  into  Christ,  who  is  the  head  of 
the  body,  the  church,  "  From  whom  all  the 
body  fitly  framed  and  put  together,  through 
every  joint  of  supply,  according  to  the 
working  in  due  measure  of  each  several 
part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body  unto  the 
building  up  of  itself  in  love."  These  mirac- 
ulous powers  were  to  perfect  the  saints  for 
the  work  of  ministering.  They  were  to  be 
perfect  for  building  up  of  the  church.  Then 
the  church  was,  by  its  own  parts,  joints 
and  members  to  build  itself  up.  This  mi- 
raculous power  was  not  to  do  it. 

The  constitutional  convention  is  appointed 
to  perfect  the  people  for  the  work  of  organ- 
izing the  body,  the  government.  When 
that  is  done,  then  each  part  that  the  con- 
stitution ordains,  the  government  that  it 
ordains,  builds  up  itself.  The  constitu- 
tional convention  does  not  continue  to  build 
what  it  has  already  built  and  completed. 
Constitution-making  and  government-or- 
ganizing are  done.  Tbe  man  has  reached 
his  growth.  The  government  now  performs 
its  functions  as  a  perfect  government.  The 
man  now  performs  his  duties  as  man.  He 
does  not  continue  to  grow  or  liveas  a  minor 
under  teachers.  We  will  now  go  back  and 
look  at  it  again.  These  powers  were  given 
to  the  church,  and  were  to  perfect  the 
Saints  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and 
this  ministry  was  the  building  up  of  the 
church.  Common  sense  would  say  that 
when  that  was  done  the  work  was  com- 
pleted, and  they  would  cease,  just  as  when 
the  constitution  is  perfected  and  the  gov- 
ernment organized  under  it,  all  con^titu- 
tion-making  powers  cease,  having  accom- 
plished their  work.  So  the  Holy  Spirit 
declares.  It  declares  these  miraculous  pow- 
ers, these  constitution-makinir  powers,  were 
to  do  their  work  and  exist,  "until."  There 
is  a  period  before  the  "until-,"  the  constitu- 
tion-making period  There  is  a  period  after 
"until,"  the  period  when  the  church  ia 


282 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


the  perfect  con«t  ruction  and  perfectly 
org;inized  in  accordance  with  it.  Uni.il 
wnen?  "Fntil  we  attain  unto  the  unity  of 
the  faith,"  the  word  of  (Ind.  until  the  con- 
stitution is  completed,  ami  "of  the  knowl- 
edge of  (he  Son  of  (i.-d  "  thr  urh  his  com- 
pu  ted  gospel.  Also  "unto  a  full  grown 
man,"  until  the  body  of  Christ  has  become 
a  full  grown  man.  until  the  government  is 
completely  organized  under  the  completed 
constitution,  ihe  complete  word  of  God. 
"Also  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of 
the  fullness  of  Christ."  It  is  until  that 
time.  When  that  is  accomplished  these 
constitution-making  powers  cease.  They 
exist  until  then.  Afier  that  constitution- 
making  powers  cea«e,  having  accomplished 
their  purpose.  That  takes  that  passage 
away  from  him. 

It  my  opponent  will  divide  the  language 
at  the  "until"  he  will  find  that  all  miracu- 
lous, all  constitution-making  power  was 
before  it.  After  the  ''until"  there  is  no 
miraculous  or  constitution-making  power. 
It  has  accomplished  its  purpose.  The  con- 
stitution declares  miraculous  or  constitution- 
making  power  exists  "until"  it  has  made 
the  constitution,  and  the  government  is 
organized  under  it.  Then  it  ceases,  having 
accomplished  its  purpose.  My  opponent 
absurdly  contends  that  because  he  finds 
constitution-making  power  before  the  "un- 
til" while  it  was  making  the  constitution, 
il  must  exist  after  the  "until"  when  it  has 
completed  its  work  in  completing  the  con- 
stitution, and  the  government  has  been 
completed  in  accordance  with  the  constitu- 
tion. His  own  passage  is  fatal  to  his  absurd 
position.  His  position  is  a  flat  contradic- 
tion of  all  sense  and  all  teaching  of  the 
Hcriptures.  Cannot  he  understand  that 
the  period  before  the  "until"  and  the  one 
after  it,  between  the  constitution-making 
period  and  the  one  when  it  has  ceased  are 
different. 

We  come  now  to  his  last  struggle.  God 
had  imparted  to  theCorinthian  church  nine 
miraculous  gifts  and  set  nine  miraculous 
powers  in  the  church.  The  Corinthians 
erred  not  in  each  one  wan  ting  to  exercise  all 
gifts,  as  he  falsely  asserts  ;  but  in  each  one 
thinking  that  his  one  gift  was  better  than 
all  other  gifts;  and  for  that  reason  heshott  d 
be  the  chief  one  and  the  one  most  hon  >red 
in  the  church.  The  apostle  beautifully 
illustrates  the  church  and  the  exercise  of 
these  powers  by  the  human  body  and  its 
members,  and  shows  that  all  are  essential 
and  all  should  be  honored  alike.  HH  did 
not  approve  of  Mormon  hierarchy  of  a  score 
of  officers  from  president  down.  The  Corin- 
thians erred  also  in  regarding  these  Spiri- 
tual gifts  as  the  great  end  of  the  religion  of 
Christ.  Paul  exposes  that  error  also.  He 
says,  "But  desire  earnestly  the  greater  gifts, 
and  a  more  excellent  way  I  will  show  unto 
you."  My  opponent,  through  ignorance  no 
doubt,  for  so  honest  and  good  a  soul  would 
not  do  it  wilfully,  represents  the  apostle  as 
eaying  that  he  had  shown  unto  them  a  more 
excellent  way  than  for  each  one  to  exercise 
all  gifts.  As  the  Corinthians  had  each  but 


onp  gift  and  had  never  dreamed  of  ex^rcis- 
ing  any  other,  for  each  thought  the  gilt  he 
had  far  aboveall  other  gifts,  the  apo*i  le  did 
not  warn  them  against  what  they  had  not 
dreamed  of,  and  he  did  not  show  them  a 
more  excellent  way  than  a  way  that  never 
had  existed,  could  not  exist,  and  they  had 
never  dreamed  could  exist.  My  honest, 
pious  opponent  blundered  grieviously  in 
that  falsification  of  the  apostles  language. 
Next  he  innocently,  good,  pious  soul 
that  he  is.  transposes  the  mem  hers  of  the  sen- 
tence and  violates  all  grammar  and  sense 
and  has  nota  manuscript  or  a  scholar  in  the 
world  tosustain  him.  Bll  fiatly  forbid  such 
transposition.  Finally  he  caps  the  climax  of 
his  pious  honest  falsifications  of  the  language 
by  changing  the  tense  from  "  I  show  you," 
into  "  I  have  shown  you,"  making  it  re'fer  to 
what  the  apostle  has  said  before,  and  not  to 
what  he  is  about  to  say  ;  as  the  truth  of  the 
case  declares  can  be  his  only  meaning.  So 
good  a  soul  as  my  opponent  would  not  do 
this  wilfully.  No  doubt  he  is  honest  and 
did  it  innocently,  ignorantly.  It  through 
ignorance  how  great  is  that  ignorance.  But 
when  we  open  our  Bibles  and  discards  his 
falsifications,  itstill  reads,  "  Desire  earnest- 
ly the  greater  gifts  and  a  more  excellent 
way  I  show  unto  you."  More  excellent  than 
what?  As  the  way  he  had  just  mentioned 
was  the  exercise  of  the  greatest  Spiritual 
gifts,  the  more  excellent  must  be  some  other 
way  than  the  exercise  of  the  greatest  Spir- 
itual gifts.  Common  sense  will  allow  no 
other  interpretation.  The  fact  that  the 
Corinthians  regarded  Spiritual  gifts  as  the 
great  end-of  the  Gospel  proves  that  Paul 
meant  that.  He  denounces  that  idea  as 
an  error,  by  declaring  that  there  was  a 
more  excellent  way  than  the  exercise 
of  the  best  of  these  gifts.  That  such 
was  his  meaning  the  sentences  imme- 
diately following  show.  He  declares  all 
gifts  are  worthless  unless  they  aid  in 
producing  Christian  love,  Christian  charac- 
ter. He  then  enters  into  a  eulogy  on  Chris- 
tian character,  and  declares  the  trreat  pur- 
pose of  the  gospel  is  to  produce  that;  and 
anything  that  does  not  do  that  is  worthless. 
Spiritual  gifts  are  worthless  unless  they  do 
that.  Having  thus  exposed  this  error  in 
making  spiritual  gifts  the  end,  instead  of 
only  a  means  to  a  higher  end,  he  explains 
the  only  way  of  producing  Christian  charac- 
ter, the  way  that  is  better  than  the  exer- 
cise of  the  best  spiritual  gifts.  He  declares 
prophesying,  the  prophesying  of  which  he 
spoke  in  the  xii  chap.,  all  speaking  by  in- 
spiration ;  all  knowledge,  the  knowledge, 
the  revelations  of  which  he  spoke  in  the 
xii  chapter;  all  tongues  the  signs  of 
which  he  spoke  in  the  xii  chap.,  all  the 
spiritual  gifts  of  which  he  spoke  in  the  xii 
chapter,  shall  be  done  away,  cease.  The 
more  excellent  way  than  the  exercise  of  the 
greatest  spiritual  gifts  is  a  state  of  the 
church  in  which  they  will  be  done  away. 
He  says  this  prophesying,  this  knowledge, 
these  revelations  of  "which  you  think  so 
much,  are  only  partial,  a  fragment,  a  part 
of  God's  word.  When  that  is  completed, 


TILE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


283 


or  when  the  perfect  word  of  God  has  come, 
these  partial  revelations  will  cease,  being 
no  longer  needed  for  the  church  will  be  in 
that  more  excellent  way  having  a  complete 
word,  instead  of  a  partial  revelation,  a  frag- 
ment of  it.  That  is  plain  common  sense. 
Just  what  the  language  means.  The  apos- 
tle goes  back  to  his  figure  of  the  human 
body  used  in  the  ;xii  chapter.  In  the  xii 
chapter  he  uses  a  body.  In  the  xiii  he 
uses  his  own  body,  illustrates  and  personi- 
fies the  church  'with  his  own  body.  He 
says  just  as  I  perceived  as  a  child,  thought 
as  a  child,  when  I  was  a  child,  so  the  church, 
now  under  these  spiritual  srifts,  perceives, 
thinks  and  speaks  as  a  child.  And  just  as 
I  put  away  child's  things  when  I  became 
a  man,  so  the  church  will  put  away  these 
childish  things,  these  partial  revelations 
under  these  spiritual  gifts,  when  it  becomes 
a  man,  having  the  sompleted  word  of  God. 


Under  these  spiritual  gifts  the  church  sees 
as  in  a  mirror  darkly,  its  knowledge  is  only 
partial,  and  a  fragment  at  a  time;  but 
when  the  word  of  God  is  completed  it  will 
see  what  it  ought  to  be,  the  image  will  be 
perfect,  and  it  will  know  what  it  ought  to 
be.  as  God  knows  what  it  ought  to  be. 
The  partial  and  complete  do  not  refer  to  the 
church  before  Christ's  second  coming  and 
its  condition  afterwards.  There  is  not  a 
hint  of  such  an  idea  in  the  whole  context. 
It  refers  to  two  states  of  the  church  under 
the  apostles.  One  was  the  state  under 
spiritual  gifts  which  were  partial  in  their 
revelations.  The  other  and  more  excellent 
state,  was  when  the  word  of  God,  revela- 
tions were  not  partial,  but  perfect  in  God's 
word,  when  gifts  would  cease,  having  ac- 
complished their  purpose,  and  being  no 
more  needed. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  SEVENTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — My  opponent  seems  much 
worried  over  my  exposition  of  the  language, 
"Yet  show  I  unto  you  a  more  excellent 
way."  He  could  take  up  a  plain  and 
positive  passage  like  that  of  Jesus  in  John 
3:  5,  and  try  to  translate  for  you.  But 
when  I  interpret  according  to  other  Bible 
passages  this  sentence  which  shows  upon 
the  face  of  it  that  there  is  a  mistake  some- 
where, he  thinks  I  arn  outside  of  my  pro- 
vince entirely.  Now  such  a  position  as  that 
is  too  frivolous  to  take  up  any  time  with 
argument. 

There  are  many  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  which  require  an  interpretation, 
by  reason  of  something  being  left  out  or 
put  in  the  Bible  manuscripts  which  were 
copied  from  the  original.  It  is  the  true 
minister'!"  province  to  interpret  these  so  as 
to  ajrree  with  and  not  contradict  any  other 
part  of  the  Bible.  And  a  rule  of  interpre- 
tation laid  down  by  a  distinguished  Bible 
critic  is:  "To  bring  all  scripture  bearing 
upon  the  point  in  controversy  together,  and 
if  you  thus  lorm  no  contradiction  you  are 
right." 

Take  the  passage  in  John  :  "Noman  hath 
seen  God  at.  any  lime." 

I  turn  back  to  Ex»dua  24 :  9  &  10,  and 
road  thai  "  Moses»,  Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abi- 
hu.  and  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel :  saw 
the  (tod  of  Israel  :  and  there  was  under  his 
feet  a*  it  were  a  paved  work  of  a  sapphire 
stone,  and  as  it  were  the  bodv  of  heaven  in 


its  clearness.  And  upon  the  nobles  of  the 
children  of  Israel  he  laid  not  his  hand: 
also  they  saw  God,  and  did  eat  and  drink." 

This  passage  in  John  upon  its  face  then 
raises  a  question  of  explanation.  And  the 
evident  reason  is,  that  thequalifyingclause 
has  been  omitted  by  the  transcriber  at  some 
time.  It  is  not  difficult  from  all  the 
passages  bearing  upon  this  to  tell  what  it 
was,  however 

Take  the  language  again  of  Jesus,  "All 
who  ever  came  before  me  are  thieves  and 
robbers."  Why,  John  came  before  him, 
and  was  not.  The  true  explanation  is  to 
be  made :  "All  who  came  before  me  (who 
testified  not  of  tne)aretheivesand  robbers." 

Again,  "  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  cannot 
sin." 

It  is  a  flat  contradiction  of  the  Hebrew 
letter. 

"  Whoseover  is  born  of  God  (will  not  con- 
tinue) in  sin." 

Thus  with  the  text,  "  Yet  show  I  unto 
you  a  more  excellent  way  " 

The  thought  at  once  springs  to  the  mind 
the  question,  was  Paul  to  give  these  saints  at 
Corinth  a  new  order  of  instruction  in  church 
government  and  the  uses  and  blessings  of 
the  spiritual  grifts  to  what  he  had  then  writ- 
ten,and  to  what  he  gave  the  saints  at  Ephe- 
8iis  and  the  church  of  Jerusalem?  Hence, 
comes  in  the  work  of  the  minister  of  L'br'tl 
to  teach  and  instruct.  The  Eunuch  sahi, 
•'  How  can  I  (understand  it)  except  «ome 
man  should  guide  me."  Acts  8:  31.  And 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


the  man  must  be  instructed  and  sent  of  the 
Lord  who  guides,  or  he  will  not  guide 
aright.  Theological  schools  and  institutes 
of  learning  are  all  good  in  their  place,  but 
they  can  no  more  supply  the  place  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  leading  the  mind  and  take 
the  place  of  the  true  guide,  than,  they  can 
supply  the  place  of  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  mind  and  heart.  But  it  is 
as  Paul  says,  "How  shall  they  believe  in 
him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard?  How 
shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?  And 
how  can  he  preach  except  he  be  sent." 
Hent  of  God  and  duly  authorized.  Keep 
this  before  the  people. 

He  claims  now  that  he  did  not  divide 
up  the  Hol.v  Spirit,  but  only  divided 
its  work.  Why  did  he  use  the  term 
"Miraculous  Holy  Spirit,"  indwelling 
Holy  Spirit,"  etc.,  for  then?  "Indwelling 
Holy  Ghost  and  Miraculous  Holy  Ghost." 
They  are  not  my  terms.  I  claim  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  be  only  such,  whatever  the 
form,  and  whatever  the  administration, 
in  fact,  whether  of  indwelling,  sealing, 
aiioptingor  confirming,  it  is  in  all  instances 
inspiring  and  miraculous.  The  Holy  Ghost 
to  man  is  miraculous  in  all  of  its  manifesta- 
tions. I  still  say,  Mr.  Braden,  that  you 
made  an  unwarranted  and  incorrect  division 
and  distinction,  and  one  that  is  calculated 
to  deceive. 

Again  he  reflects  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon is  the  cause  of  polygamy. 

Mr.  Braden  :  I  did  not  say  the  Book  of 
Mormon  taught  polygamy. 

Mr.  Kelley  :  You  made  the  argument  last 
night  that  polygamy  was  the  outgrowth  of 
it.  You  will  not  be  permitted  to  misrepre- 
sent me  before  this  audience  on  the  polyga- 
my question,  sir.  If  the  Book  of  Mormon 
does  not  teach  it, nor  theSaints.whom  I  have 
the  honor  to  represent,  believe  in  it,  as  they 
do  not,  why  do  you  persist  in  bringing  it 
into  your  argument?  We  are  now  upon 
the  question  of  your  church,  its  faith, 
teaching,  etc.  What  has  that  to  do  with 
polygamy?  I  understand  the  object  of  your 
references  to  this. 

My  opponent  drops  apostles  and  prophets 
from  the  church  for  the  reason,  he  says, 
that  they  were  placed  in  it  for  the  purpose 
of  "perfecting" — giving  us  the  constitution. 
But  he  also  drops  out  all  the  spiritual  gifts, 
or  gifts  through  the  Spirit:  "The  word  of 
wisdom,"  "knowledge,"  "faith,"  "gifts  of 
healing,"  "working  of  miracles,"  "proph- 
ecy," "discerning  of  spirits,"  "divers  kinds 
of  tongues"  and  the  interpretation  of 
tongues ;  these  include  pretty  much  all 
that  was  calculated  to  beautify,  enlighten, 
adorn,  develop  and  purify  the  church,  ex- 
cepting the  gifts  of  apostles,  prophets, 
evangelists,  pastors  and  teachers  which  he 
has  excluded.  These  other  gifts  were  not 
given  for  the  perfecting  of  the  constitution, 
he  will  hardly  claim  either  ;  and  since  they 
were  not,  will  he  tell  this  audience  why  his 
church  drops  them?  Or  is  it  for  the  wise 
reason  which  is  sometimes  given,  "Because 
they  are  no  longer  needed"? 

But  again  he  demands  that  I  must  show 


that  some  one  has  the  Holy  Spirit  now,  that 
brings  things  to  his  mind,  or  it  is  plain  t..at 
it  is  not  needed.  But  the  question  is  not 
does  any  one  enjoy  the  Spirit  now,  but 
does  Mr.  Braden's  church  correspond  with 
the  church  of  Christ  as  described  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  Saints  enjoyed  it 
then,  and  the  promise  was  to  all  if  they 
would  keep  all  his  commandments.  Mirac- 
ulous gifts,  he  says,  were  to  continue  until 
the  one  faith  was  completed,  or  the  word 
"  perfected."  The  word,  thegospel,  was  per- 
fect when  preached  by  Peter,  yet  Paul 
received  his  knowledge  of  it  by  revelation, 
and  he  concluded  that  it  was  so  absolutely 
perfect,  that  he  said,  "Though  we  or  an 
angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  let  him 
be  accursed,  or  if  any  man  preach  any 
other,  let  him  be  accursed."  Gal.  1:8. 
The  gospel  was  perfect  then ;  called  by 
James  the  perfect  law  of  liberty  ;  yet  the 
church  was  in  the  highest  state  of  spiritual 
enjoyment  at  the  same  time,  and  always 
would  have  continued  thus  had  there  not 
been  a  falling  away  and  the  Christians 
turned  heathen  again  and  had  only  a  dead 
form  left. 

Let  us  see  how  many  times  the  law  has 
been  made  perfect  and  complete  according 
to  Mr.  Braden's  ideas  of  perfection  Far 
back  in  Moses'  time  it  was  not  to  be  added 
to:  Deut.  4:2.  "Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the 
word  which  I  command  you,  neither  shall 
you  diminish  aught  from  it,  that  ye  may 
keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your 
God  which  I  command  you."  Did  he  mean 
to  close  up  the  avenues  of  inspiration  and 
shut  God  out  of  the  world  ?  Ps.  19:7 :  "  The 
law  of  the  law  is  perfect,  converting  the 
soul."  This  was  more  than  a  thousand  j>  ears 
before  the  birth  of  Christ.  (Shall  we  dis- 
card all  thai  was  given  afterwards  because 
perfect  then?  That  is  the  argument  of  my 
opponent  and  his  church.  Jesus  says,  "Go 
ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you."  Here  it  is  again  : 
"Teaching  them  to  observe  alt  things  what- 
soever J  have  commanded  you." 

This  was  said  in  the  year  33  of  the  Chris- 
tian era.  But  because  of  it  shall  we  reject 
the  other  writings  which  were  made  10,  20, 
30,  40,  50  and  more  than  60  years  afterwards  ? 
All  of  the  epistles  of  Peter,  John,  James, 
Jude,  Paul  and  the  revelations?  What  an 
absurd  predicament  my  oppenent  has  placed 
himself  in.  He  sends  these  persons  out  aa 
constitution  makers.  But  Jesus  sends  them 
as  publishers  of  his  commandments  only. 
Jesus  says,  "My  doctrine  is  not  mine  but 
his  that  sent  me'."  "The  Father  which  sent 
me  he  gave  me  a  commandment,  what  I 
should  say  and  what  I  should  speak." 
Here  is  where  we  find  the  framer  of  the 
Constitution.  It  was  God,  the  Eternal 
Father,  and  in  the  different  ages  he  sent 
forth  his  servants  into  the  world  to  publish 
this  Constitution  and  teach  it  to  the  people, 
but  these  servants  the  people  killed  and 
would  not  hear.  Then  he  sent  his  Sou  with 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


285 


the  me'oasre,  saying:  "  Thpy  will  rpverence 
my  son;"  but  they  called  him  an  impostor, 
a  fraud,  collected  all  the  lies  they  could 
scrape  up  which  they  told  about  him ; 
charged  him  with  being  a  ''deceiver"  and 
an  enemy  to  the  govemment  and  put  him 
to  death.  They  did  not  want  him  making 
constitution  for  them,  as  they  called  it,  they 
had  enough  constitution,  they  claimed 
Moses  and  the  prophets.  Don't  want  any 
more  constitution.  "We  know  that  God 
spoke  to  Moses,  but  as  for  this  man  we 
know  not  from  whence  he  is."  Afterwards 
as  Paul  says:  (God  again)  "Committed  unto 
us  the  word  of  reconciliation.  Now  then  we 
are  ambassadors  for  Christ  as  though  God 
did  beseech  you  by  us."  Why!  How  Paul 
does  differ  from  Braden?  Instead  of  being 
a  constitution  maker,  Paul  says  he  was  only 
an  "ambassador,"  a  messenger,  agent,  one 
sent  to  instruct  in  and  urge  obedience  to  the 
law,  or  constitution,  and  not  to  make  laws 
and  constitution. 

But  the  people  were  not  content  with  the 
death  of  the  Son,  the  heir,  but,  see  Acts  6th, 
they  determined  to  put  down  all  others  who 
claimed  to  be  preachers  of  the  word  ;  they 
therefore  opened  a  discussion  with  Stephen, 
selecting  the  best  men  they  had  in  their 
synagogues  to  carry  on  the  discussion  on 
their  side;  but,  (verse  10),  "they  were  not 
able  to  resist  the  wisdom  and  the  spirit  by 
which  he  (Stephen)  spoke."  What  did  they 
do  then?  Let  every  man  think  for  himself 
and  show  a  willingness  for  the  principles  of 
truth  to  triumph?  No,  that  would  have 
been  too  Christlike  ;  verse  11.  "Then  they 
suborned  men  which  said,  we  have  heard 
him  speak  blasphemous  words  against 
Moses  and  against  God.  And  they  stirred 
up  the  people  and  the  elders  and  the  scri  bes 
and  came  upon  him,  and  caught  him  and 
Drought  him  to  the  council.  And  set  up 
false  witnesses  which  said,  this  man  ceaseth 
not  to  speak  blasphemous  words  against 
this  holy  place  and  the  law.  For  we  have 
heard  him  say,"  (such  and  such  things). 
Was  not  that  a  pretty  way  to  do  Stephen 
after  they  had  agreed  to  discuss  their  differ- 
ences and  abide  the  issue  from  what  was 
written  in  their  law?  Which  side  there, 
my  friends,  showed  that  it  was  willing  to 
abide  by  the  faith  as  set  forth  in  God's 
word,  and  which  showed  a  greediness  for 
the  falsehoods  and  stories?  I  ask  my  op- 
ponent here,  to  answer?  But  after  they 
bring  in  their  stories  they  permit  Stephen 
again  to  answer,  and  he  begins  citing  them 
to  the  law  and  testimony  as  written  in  their 
Bible,  (the  Old  Testament  Scriptures),  ap- 
pealing to  that  'o  prove  his  cause,  and  as  he 
proceeds,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  sent  forth  to 
aid  him,  so  that  it  is  perceptibly  felt  and 
realized  by  the  entire  audience,  and  his  ap- 
peals to  the  law  and  the  testimony  of  Moses 
imi  the  prophets  is  so  powerful  and  cutting 
because  of  their  hypocrisies,  false  manner 
of  attack  and  evil  works,  that  they  get  so 
mad  they  will  endure  it  no  longer,  and  so 
determined  to  get  rid  of  him  another  way, 
and  rushed  upon  him  with  stones  and  clubs 
and  mercilessly  beat  him  to  death,  although 


he  had  shown  in  his  work  that  he  possessed 
the  true  spirit  that  belonged  to  iii«  ,  .  .0-11 
of  God  from  the  first.  He  stood  upon  the 
doctrine  of  appealing  to  the  law  in  fairness. 
Not  to  the  stories  told,  or  violent  means. 
Now,  I  will  hurriedly  read  to  you  a  sketch 
of  the  manner  the  Disciples  (Campbellites) 
met  and  vanquished  the  Saints,  at  Hiram 
over  here,  where  they  have  the  Restored 
Church,  in  1831.  from  their  own  history. 
History  of  the  Disciples  in  the  Western 
Reserve,  page  220: 

"  Perhap>.  in  no  place  except  Klrtland  dH  the  doc- 
*' trines  of  the  Latter  D*y  Saints  gain  a  more  p^rma- 
"  nent  footing  than  in  Hiram.  It  intrenched  itself 
"  there  so  strong  that  its  leaders  felt  assured  of  the 
"  capture  of  the  town.  Rudon's  former  popularity  in 
"that  region  gave  wings  to  their  appeal,  and  many 
"people,  not  avowed  conye'ts,  were  under  a  spell  of 
"  wonder  at  the  strange  things  sounded  in  their  ears. 
"To  give  particulars  of  the  Mormon  excitement  i 
"  Wl  would  require  a  volume.  A  few  words  must 
"  suffice.  It  has  been  stated  that  from  the  year  1815  to 
"  1835,  a  period  of  twenty  years,  all  sorts  of  doctrines 
1  by  all  sorts  of  preachers  had  been  plead,  and  most  of 
1  the  people  of  Hiram  had  been  disposed  to  turn  out 
'  and  hear.  This  went  by  the  specious  name  of  '  lib- 
'  eral."  The  Mormons  at  Kirtland,  being  informed  of 
'  this  particular  iiate  of  things,  were  soon  prepared 
'  for  the  onst-t." 

I  call  your  attention  particularly  to  the 
appeals  made  by  the  Saints,  then,  as  set  out 
by  their  enemie*s,in  behalf  of  their  religion. 
There  was  no  fraud  or  deception  in  this — 
no  fear  manifest  of  meeting  the  issues  hon- 
orably. As  men  advocating  principles 
which  they  believed  to  be  true,  wherever 
they  found  a  place  where  they  would  be 
permitted  to  compare  their  views  with  oth- 
ers, as  the  saints  of  old,  they  gladly  ac- 
cepted the  opportunity.  However,  they 
were  not  always  met  with  the  same  godlike 
way  of  working,  as  you  will  soon  see  from 
this  Campbellite  historian.  He  continues  : 
"  In  the  \viuterofl83l,  Joseph  Smith  with  others  had 
"  an  appointment  in  the  South  school-house  in  Hiram. 
"  Such  was  the  apparent  piety,  sincerity  and  humility 
"of  the  speaker-,  that  maiiy  of  the  hearers  WIT* 
"  greatly  affected,  and  thought  it  impossible  tnat  such 
"  preachers  should  lie  in  wait  to  deceive. 

"  During  the  next  spring  and  summer  several  con. 
"  verts  were  ma.le,  *rd  their  suceess  seemed  to  indi- 
"catean  immediate '--iuiTiph  in  Hiram.*** Accordingly 
"  a  company  was  formed  by  citi.»ens  from  Shalersville, 
"Garrettsville  and  Hiram,  in  March  18:i2.  and  pro. 
"ceededto  headqnurters  n  the  darkness  of  th  wf  ht, 
"  and  took  Smith  and  Rigdon  from  th  ir  bed*  and  tarred 
"  and  feathered  them  both  and  let  them  go.  This  had  the 
"  desired  effect,  which  was  to  get  rid  of  them." 

What  a  grand  spread  Braden  made  last 
night  over  the  success,  as  he  termed  it,  of 
the  elders  of  the  Campbellite  church  meet- 
ing the  Saints  when  other  denominations 
could  not  do  so!  Oh.no!  But  they  knew 
just  how  to  do  it.  They  circulated  around 
among  the  people  in  an  underhanded  way 
false  stories  and  all  manner  of  lies  against 
the  Saints,  and  appealed  to  the  prejudices 
of  their  poorly-instructed  followers,  and  in 
this  heathenish  way  raised  a  mob  and  "got 
rid  of  them."  Was  this  a  "restored"  fea- 
ture in  Mr.  Campbell's  church?  one  taken 
from  these  Pharisees  who  stoned  Stephen 
to  death?  I  have  never  yet  seen  in  their 
publications  where  they  denounced  it, 
neither  have  I  ever  heard  one  of  their 
preachers  publicly  do  so.  How  is  it  with 
my  opponent?  Do  you  denounce  the  out- 
rage thus  perpetrated  by  your  members  or 
approve  it  ?  Do  you  defend  freedom  of  con- 


280 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


science  and  of  speech,  and  a  trial  of  the 
religious  issues  in  a  polemic  encounter,  or 
do  you  urge  persons,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Jews  against  Stephen,  and  the  Campbell- 
ites  and  others  against  Smith  and  Rigdon, 
to  use  against  men  who  oppose  you  the 
carnal  weapons  possible? 

Will  you  answer  the  question  to  this 
audience?  But  I  will  continue  the  line  of 
my  argument  upon  the  "perfect  law."  Paul 
to  Timothy :  "From  a  child  thou  hast 
known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able 
to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation  !"  2  Tim. 
3:15.  Why,  here  Paul  finds  enough  to 
make  a  man  wise  unto  salvation  in  the  Old 
Testament;  the  New,  was  not  yet  written. 
He  called  it  "the  Holy  Scriptures."  Bhall 
we  then  say,  Since  you  had  enough  Paul, 
you  had  better  stop  the  inspiration  bureau, 
and  thus  cut  out  all  of  the  New  Testament? 
Paul  again  says,  Rom.,  first  Chapt.,  as  early 
as  thf  year  A.D.60:  "For  I  am  not  ashamed 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  for  therein  is  the 
righteousness  of  God  revealed."  Is  revealed 
in  the  year  fiO;  and  yet,  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  go  on  revealing  and  talking 
by  inspiration  for  nearly  forty  years  after. 
Take  James  1 :25.  This  was  written  in  the 
year  60,  also :  "But  whoso  looketh  into  the 
perfect  law  of  liberty  and  continueth  there- 
in," etc.  Did  he  mean  a  complete  law? 
Let  us  see.  Read  by  substituting  the  word 
complete:  "Whoso  looketh  into  the  (com- 
plete) law  of  liberty," — this  changes  the 
idea  and  does  violence  to  the  wisdom  of 
God.  It  is  the  perfect  law,  in  the  same  way 
as  the  Psalmist  spoke  of  the  perfect  law; 
but  being  such,  it  does  not  cut  off  all  of 
God's  perfect  law,  written  after  this  time. 
Take  up  the  text  that  he  is  willing  to  stand 
on,  so  he  says :  And  I  will  say  here  that 
he  has  been  hunting  about  like  a  man  lost 
at  sea  for  something  to  hang  to,  ever  since 
the  discussion  began  and  never  found  that 
which  would  satisfy  him  till  last  night. 
Here  it  is,  2  Peter,  1:8:  "According  as  his 
divine  power  hath  given  unto  us  all  things 
that  pertain  unto  life  and  godliness,  through 
the  knowledge  of  him  that  hath  called  us 
to  g'ory  and  virtue." 

I  shall  try  to  examine  his  strong  text, 
fairly  and  impartially.  Does  it  mean  that 
Christ  has  spoken  all  that  is  ever  needful 
for  man  to  know  and  that  there  is  to  be  no 
more  revelation,  prophecy,  divine  instruc- 
tion from  this  date?  "Hath  given,"  the 
apostle  says:  "Not,  is  giving  or  going  to 
give,  but  "hath  given  !"  Notwithstanding 
he  had  then  given,  we  had  written  after- 
wards: Paul's  2nd  epistle  to  Timothy,  the 
three  epistles  of  John,  the  epistle  of  Jude, 
the  Book  of  Revelations,  and  John's  gospel. 
Then  he  did  not  mean  that  all  that  God 
wanted  tosay,  to  the  human  family  had  been 
said  and  there  was  to  be  no  more  inspir- 
ation? Certainly  not.  Such  a  thought  would 
have  appalled  the  inspired  Peter.  What 
did  he  mean?  Just  what  he  said,  "Hath 
given  unto  us  all  things  that  pertain  unto 
life  and  godliness."  What  are  the  things 
that  pertain  unto  life  and  godliness.  1st. 
the  Comforter  ;  "If  I  go  away  I  will  send 


him,  and  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth?" 
This  then  pertaim  to  life  and  godliness. 
"This  is  eternal  life  that  they  might  know 
then  the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent."  How  can  they  at- 
tain to  this?  Answer,  by  the  means  ordained 
to  lead  to  life  and  godliness.  The  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  See  Paul's  letter: 
"No  man  can  say  (know)  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  is  tho 
principle  upon  which  Jesus  said  "I  wiH 
build  my  church."  Not  begin  to  build, 
remember;  he  had  already  begun,  but  was 
to  continue  building,  and  is  yet  building; 
and  he  says,  "I  will  build,"  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  immediate  and  direct  re\  elation. 
Hence,  Paul  says,  "After  I  heard  of  your 
faith  I  ceased  not  to  give  thanks  that  He 
would  give  unto  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  revelation  in  the  knowledge  of  him." 

This  principle  was  the  great  and  <-rown- 
ing  one  of  the  all  things  that  pert.-iincd  to 
life  and  godliness,  and  without  it,  Christ's 
church  was  not,  nor  could  not  have  been 
builded.  Will  you  discard  it  then  ?  Now, 
Mr.  Braden,  let  us  hear  from  you  on  your 
strong  text  which  you  are  willing  to  rest 
your  case  upon. 

I  next  call  your  attention  to  his  blunder  on 
Mark,  ix  :  1.  "There  be  some  standing  here 
who  shall  not  tast*»  of  death,  till  they  have 
seen  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power." 
Here  is  another  of  his  strong  pillars;  he 
rests  his  case  here  again. 

No  difference  to  him  that  Jesus  had  said 
to  the  Pharisees  "  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
within  [among]  you,"  and  that  "  from  the 
days  of  John  the  Baptist  it  had  suffered 
violence,"  and  that  men  then  "pressed 
into  it;"  it  was  only  on  Pentecost  it  came 
with  power,  and  that  is  the  time  he  says, 
this  was  fulfilled  in  Markix:  1.  "  There  be 
some  standing  here  who  shall  not  taste 
death  "  Well,  it  was  a  pretty  large  sum  if 
he  referred  to  Pentecost,  for  all  of  them 
were  there  except  Judas  Iscariot.  Yet  the 
language  is  "There  be  some."  What  did 
Jesus  refer  to?  I  answer,  to  the  coming  of 
himself  in  his  kingdom,  in  power  and  great 
glory.  Was  that  on  Pentecost?  No.  He 
did- not  so  come  then  as  predicted  here. 
Did  any  of  them  see  it?  Yes.  Who? 
Answer,  Peter,  James  and  John.  Begin 
with  the  second  verse  of  the  same  chapter: 
"After  six  days  Jesus  taketh  with  him 
Peter,  James  and  John  and  leadeth  them 
up  into  an  high  mountain  apart  by  them- 
selves ;  and  he  was  transfigured  before 
them."  Jesus  is  transformed,  changed, 
so  that  his  countenance  did  "shine  as  the 
light."  This  is  the  time  for  the  intro- 
duction of  important  evidence  in  the  church. 
There  are  to  be  witnesses  to  something 
else  than  the  mere  reinstating  of  the  church 
on  earth  ;  it  is  for  the  establishment  of  the 
the  promise,  that  Jesus  will  come  again  in 
his  kingdom,  in  "power  and  great  glory." 

Hence,  he  takes  his  chosen  three  wit- 
nesses,— all  were  not  permitted  to  see  him 
even  of  the  twelve;  only  three  witnesses 
behold  this  grandest  of  all  things  ill  hope 
and  promise  to  the  human  family.  They 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


287 


are  overcome  with  its  splendor,  grandeur 
arid  power ;  Moses  and  Elias  appear,  the 
voice  of  Ood  is  heard  verifying  tbe  truth- 
•ullness  of  the  event,  and  the  prophecies 
^re  truly  confirmed.  Afterwards  the  world 
hrough  the  witnesses  is  permitted  to  know 
fa  surety  of  he  coming  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  in  power.  Then,  does  thestatement 
refer  .o  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  on 
"'entecost  day  ?  No,  sir.  Turn  to  the  des- 
cription of  the  event  and  testimony  by  Peter 
himself.  Second  Peter,  1:16.  "For  we 
have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables, 
when  e  made  known  unto  you  the  power 
and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but 
•were  eye  'itnesses  of  his  majesty.  For  he 
received  from  God  the  Father  honor  and 
glory  /hen  ohere  came  such  a  voice  to  him 
from  the  excellent  glory  :  This  is  my  beloved 
Bon.  n  whom  I  am  well  pleased."' 

when  did  the  event  of  witnessing  this 
rlory  md  power  of  Jesus  coming  in  his 
^Cliufdo  ;i  with  the  just  of  earth  take  place? 
8e-»  versa  18:  "  And  this  voice  which  came 
fro  >i  h  aveii  we  heard  when  we  were  with 
Mm  'u  the  Holy  mount." 

Her  i  then  is  the  fulfillment  of  Mark  ix:  1, 
as  declared  by  Peter  himself,  and  it  was 
nob  oa  Pentecost  day.  Ho  another  pillar  has 
gone  from  under  Braden's  church. 

Again,  they  are  the  "  royal  priesthood, 
an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,"  he  says. 
All  kings  and  priests.  No  queens  among 
them.  But  you  cannot  touch  a  Disciple 
without  coming  in  contact  with  a  king  and 
priest.  The  other  evening,  however,  he 
hooted  at  the  idea  of  any  one  having  the 
royal,  or  Melchizedek  priesthood.  Christ 
was  the  last  of  the  line,  and  heentered  into 
the  vail,  and  was  their  prophet,  priest  and 
king.  Now,  he  says,  all  are  priests  and 
hinffs;  and  yet  not  a  sign  of  Priesthood. 
No,  no;  only  such  impostors  as  "Joe 
Smith,"  he  says,  'claim  such  things,"  and 
he  says,  "  if  I  have  proven  him  an  impostor 
I  have  a  right  to  call  him  one."  Yes,  and 
if  he  has  not  proven  any  such  thing  (and 
truly  he  has  not  even  bordered  on  to  proving 
it),  he  has  no  right  to  use  the  expression  ; 
but  to  the  priesthood  question. 

I  can  see  how  Peter  could  speak  of  the 
church  then,  as  a  "chosen  generation,  a 
royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar 
people:"  Because  th«y  were  chosen  of  God 
by  his  Spirit  for  their  work  ;  called  by  in- 
spiration. The  church  was  built  up  "an 
habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit."  All 
were  in  the  bonds  by  virtue  of  the  love  of 
God  shed  abroad  in  the  heart.  They  were 
in  possession  of  the  ro.val,  or  Melchizedek 
priesthood,  and  conferred  it;  hence,  the 
right  of  ordination  and  conferring  of  some- 
thing. As  Jesus  was  sent,  so  he  sent  the 
apostles,  and  he  was  made  a  priest  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedek,  the  royal  line. 
I  can  see  all  this,  but  where  does  it  harmo- 
nize with  a  church  with  no  one  sent;  no 
priesthood;  no  Holy  Ghost ;  no  habitation 
of  God  through  the  spirit? 

But,  he  says,  h«  gets  his  in  Revelations, 
1:6  and  5:10:  "And  hath  made,  us  kings 
and  priests  untoour  God."  When  ar^they  ? 


Now?  Read  on,  "and  we  shall  reign  on 
the  earth."  What!  reign  and  minister 
before  the  kingdom  is  conferred  ?  Can  you 
enter  upon  your  work  in  the  priest,  or 
kingly  office  before  you  have  received  your 
authority?  Paul  was  chosen  when  Jesus 
first -uet  him  in  the  way;  but  long  after- 
wards he  was  authorized  and  set  apart  by 
the  instruction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the 
special  duties  of  a  minister.  But  they  are 
all  kings  and  priests  in  Mr.  Braden's  church 
now.  No  authority  can  be  conferred.  They 
are  all  away  up  at  the  top  of  the  ladder. 
Let  us  see  further.  Revelations,  20:6. 
"Blessed  and  holy  is  he  that  hath  part  in 
the  first  resurrection  ;  on  such  the  second 
death  hath  no  power,  but  they  shall  be 
priests  of  God  and  Christ,  and  shall  reign 
with  him  a  thousand  years."  Shall  rei^n 
with  Christ  if  they  have  part  in  the  first 
resurrection.  And  this  is  why  they  are 
called  kings  and  priests.  But  our  Curnp- 
bellite  friends  have  the  cart  before  the 
horse,  and  are  reigning  and  ministering 
before  the  time' of  the  resurrection  and  the 
thousand  3rears.  Does  not  this  prove  Mr. 
Campbell  a  restorer  ?  And  remember,  my 
friends,  that  these  disciples  are  not  heirs, 
simply.  There  are  no  princes  even  among 
them.  They  are  kings  and  priests  now, 
according  to  Braden,  and  have,  therefore, 
entered  upon  their  inheritances,  and  we 
must  look  out,  for  ihey  are  reigning. 

He  says  again,  that  an  event  that  always 
attends  preaching  is  no  confirmation.  This 
is  a  mistake.  Preaching  is  just  as  edifying 
once  a  week  as  twice  a  year.  The  enjoy- 
ment of  the  Spirit  is  just  as  comforting 
and  confirming  received  every  day,  and 
more  so,  than  but  once  a  year  ;  or,  as  the 
Disciples  have  it,  never.  "The  confirming 
of  Peter  and  John  did  not  answer  for  Paul. 
He  required  a  similar  confirmation,  as  do 
all  the  children  of  God.  It  is  not  an  im- 
peachment of  the  word  to  require  the  mani- 
festation of  the  Spirit,  or  new  revelation, 
for  the  word  of  God  no  where  forbids  it. 
"I  will  give  you  line  upon  line,  precept 
upon  precept,  here  a  little  and  there  a  lit- 
tle"— as  God  wills — is  the  thought  expressed 
in  the  revelation  of  his  word.  But  Mr* 
Braden's  position  is:  Bar  out  God,  and  Christ, 
and  angels,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  you 
wish  to  know  anj'thing  about  these  things, 
just  read  what  Paul  said  he  knew  about 
such  things,  and  that  will  be  all  sufficient. 
Is  this  a  corrcet  one?  No,  never.  Kvery 
ehi  d  of  God  needs,  and  is  entitled  to,  the 
revelation  of  the  Spirit  to  him  or  herself, 
that  they  may  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
and  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  God.  "This 
is  life  eternal  that  they  might  know  thee 
theonly  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom, 
thou  has  sent."  "No  one  can  say  that  Jesus 
is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  But 
he  says,  there  are  two  states  of  the  church 
represented.  One  under  the  gifts,  the  other 
without  them,  and  that  the  church  without 
the  gifts  is  the  more  excellent  one.  Let  us 
see  :  In  First,  Corinthians,  12,  Paul  likens  the 
church  unto  the  body  of  a  man,  and  says: 

"For  as  tbe  body  is  one  and  batb  many  members  and 


288 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  EEBATE. 


'nil  the  members  of  Ihnt  one  body,  being  many,  are 
'one  body,  so  also  is  Christ."  Verse  12,  "For  the  body 
1  is  not  one  member  but  many ;  if  the  foot  shall  say, 
'  Because  I  am  not  the  hand,  I  am  not  of  the  body,  is  it 
'therefore,  not  of  the  body  ?  If  the  ear  shall  say  be- 
'  cause  I  am  not  the  eye  I  am  not  of  the  body,  is  It 
'  therefore,  not  of  the  body  ?  If  the  whole  body  were 
'  an  eye,  where  were  the  hearing?  If  the  whole  we  e 
'  hearing,  where  were  the  smelling?  But  now  hath 
'God  set  every  one  of  the  members  in  the  body  as  it 
'hath  pleased  him.  Now  there  are  many  members, 
'but  one  body.  " 

Paul  goes  on  to  tell  what  he  means  by 
this  illustration  as  applied  to  the  church. 
He  says,  "and  God  hath  set  some  in  the 
"church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  proph- 
"  ets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles, 
"then  gifts  of  healing,  helps,  governments 
"and  diversities  of  tongues."  Theapostles, 
prophets,  teachers,  miracles,  tongues,  inter- 
pretations, &c.,  were  to  the  church  what 
eyes,  hearing,  tasting,  smelling,  hands  and 
feet  are  to  the  body  of  a  man. 

The  perfect  man  with  eyes  and  ears  and 
mouth  and  tasting  and  smelling,  hands  and 
feet,  &c.,  represents  the  true  church  of 
Christ  as  set  out  by  Paul.  But  Mr.  Braden 
says,  "This  perfect  man  did  not  represent 
the  highest  state  of  the  church  ;  that  this 
is  Paul  in  infancy  playing  with  toys;  but 
the  perfect  church,  or  full  grown  man, 
and  higher  developed  church  came  after.'' 
Then  it  would  be  appropriately  represented 
by  a  man  who  has  no  eyes,  nor  ears,  nor 
mouth,  nor  smelling,  nor  hands,  nor  feet. 
Hence  the  Campbellites  gouge  out  Paul's 
man's  eyes,  (apostles),  and  tear  off  his  ears, 
(prophets),  deprive  him  of  smelling  and 
tasting,  close  up  his  mouth,  against  inter- 
pretations, cut  off  his  hands  and  feet,  (helps 
and  governments  inspired  of  God),  and  then 
present  their  blind,  deaf,  dumb  and  maim- 
ed man  to  the  world  and  mount  the  old 
Christian  constitution  with  an  assumptions 
claim  that  they  "stand  on  the  Bible  and  the 
Bible  alone,"  and  swear  in  their  wrath 
that  they  have  restored  Paul's  man  to  life, — 
that  the  old  church  has  come  again.  Paul's 
was  full  of  light,  and  hope  ;  could  see,  and 
hear,  and  smell,  and  taste,  and  walk,  and 
work,  and  grow  in  grace  and  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Lord  ;  but  theirs  is  the  more  ex- 
cellent one,  Braden  says.  He  is  blind,  and 
deaf,  and  dumb;  cannot  walk  or  use  his 
hands,  and  has  no  life  or  sense.  What  a 
similarity  indeed,  there  is  between  these 
two  churches  !  What  a  restorer  Mr.  Camp- 
bell must  have  been  ! !  They  go  on  and  ar- 
gue that  the  seeing  man  was  to  be  done 
away,  but  the  blind,  and  deaf  one,  was  to 
be  continued, — not  done  away. 

My  friends,  Paul's  child  church  is  the 
church  of  Christ  on  earth,  seeing  and  know- 
ing in  part  by  the  aid  of  prophecy  and 
tongues,  and  all  other  spiritual  gifts;  and 
the  full  grown,  or  perfected  state  of  the 
church,  will  be,  when  a  full  knowledge  is 
revealed,  when  Christ  is  come, — when  "we 
Bhall  know  as  we  are  known  and  see  as 
we  are  seen."  Then  that  through  which 
only  a  part  could  be  revealed  will  be  done 
away.  Paul  did  not  convey  the  thought 
thatanother  church  would  arise  that  would 
eclipse  in  glory  the  one  which  lie  set  forth, 
and  which  he  labored  to  build  up,  which 


might  appropriately  be  illustrated  by  a 
blind,  deaf,  mute,  lifeless,  man.'  .No,  nev- 
er tliought  of  such  a  thing.  But,  that  the 
church  established  on  earth  with  authority, 
power,  and  gifts  as  the  means  by  which  it 
should  be  built  up  and  guided  would,  at 
some  time,  be  ushered  into  the  full  glory  of 
Christ  and  this  time  was  at  his  comi.ni/;  and 
that  all  partial  gifts  not  essential  to  that 
age  of  light  and  perfect  knowledge  and  glo- 
ry would  be  done  away.  It  is  plain  enough 
for  even  a  wayfaring  man  to  see. 

But  Braden  goes  on  and  tries  to  make  out 
that  the  gospel  never  was  preached  in  fact 
until  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  order  to  sup- 
port this  assumption  he  proceeds  to  divide 
thegospel  into  several  parts,  and  hasthegos- 
pel  in  prospect.and  thegospel  in  process, and 
thegospel  in  fact ;  but  where  does  he  get  the 
gospel  of  prospect  and  the  gospel  of  pro- 
cess ?  Not  in  the  Bible.  With  all  the  reve- 
lations of  ancient  and  modern  days,  it  was 
left  for  the  Campellites  to  reveal  the  gospel 
of  prospect  and  process.  Christ  is  the  cen- 
tral figure  of  the  gospel,  and  it  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieveth.  This  was  true  before  the  days  of 
Christ's  earthly  ministry  as  it  was  after. 
The  only  difference  is,  the  saints  in  the 
olden  time  believed  that  he  would  come, 
and  the  saints  now  believe  that  he  has 
come.  Jesus'  existence  was  just  as  much  a 
reality  before  the  time  that  he  was  born  of 
a  virgin  as  it  was  after.  He  was  as  "a  lamb 
slain  from  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world."  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am," 
says  Christ.  He  was  in  the  church  in  the 
wilderness.  Christ  was  so  truly  known, 
and  the  gospel  so  really  preached  in  olden 
times,  that  Job  exclaims,  ''I  know  that  my 
Redeemer  liveth,"  and  after  that  skin 
worms  had  destroyed  his  body  (or  after  the 
resurrection),  standing  upon  the  earth,  in 
the  latter  days  in  his  flesh  he  should  see 
God.  "Immortality  and  eternal  life  is 
brought  to  light  by  the  gospel."  Immor- 
tality and  a  perpetuity  of  light  is  not  re- 
vealed or  attained  through  any  system  but 
the  gospel.  In  it  Enoch's  hope  was  found- 
ed, and  he  looked  forward  and  saw  Christ 
coming  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints. 
But  this  is  the  gospel  of  process,  according 
to  Mr.  Braden,  as  the  event  has  not  trans- 
pired as  yet.  Enoch  had  the  gospel  just 
the  same  as  Paul  preached  ;  knew  of  Christ, 
and  was  made  partaker  of  the  powers  of  the 
world  to  come  because  of  his  faith  in  God, 
which  is  one  of  the  first  principles.  Heb. 
6:1,  "The  gospel  was  preached  to  A  lira- 
ham,"  ami  he  became  the  father  of  the 
faithful.  So  all  that  afe  saved  through  the 
gospel  are  to  be  saved  with  faithful  Abra- 
ham. Nothing  is  said  about  a  gospel  in 
prospect,  process,  or  in  fact.  Abraham 
heard  and  understood  thegospel,  which  is 
"  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every 
one  that  believeth."  It  was  preached  to 
the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  but  they 
would  not  abide  by  it,  and  Go<l  aided  the 
"schoolmaster,  '  (the  law  of  Mose.-),  which 
did  not  make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect. 
It  was  a  "yoke  too  hard  for  us  or  our  lath- 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


289 


ers  to  bear,"  says  Peter.  The  old  iron  yoke 
is  one  thing,  and  the  gospel  of  liberty  un- 
derstood by  Adam,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abra- 
ham, and  presented  to  the  Israelites,  is  an- 
other thing.  The  Israelites  rejected  the 
gospel,  just  as  they  rejected  God  when  they 
chose  to  have  a  king.  But  let  us  come  a 
little  nearer  home.  "  Jesus  came  into  Gali- 
lee preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Mark  1:14.  Again,  "And  Jesus 
went  about  all  Galilee  teaching  in  their 
synagogues  and  preaching  the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom."  Matt.  4:23.  But,  says  Braden. 
"this  was  in  process,  or  prospect."  But 
Matthew  and  Mark  say  nothing  about  pro- 
cess, or  prospect,  or  fact.  That  was  left  for 
the  Disciples  to  add  to  the  Bible.  Gospel 
was  gospel  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  wheth- 
er preached  before,  on,  or  after  Pentecost. 
It  was  all  the  same  with  inspired  men.  But 
Disciples  do  not  want  any  gospel  until  Pen- 
tecost ;  if  so,  it  will  have  to  be  modified  a 
little  with  process,  or  prospect,  or  fact. 
That  was  a  great  day  with  the  Campbell- 
ited  as  old  men  dreamed  dreams  and  young 
men  saw  visions,  the  sun  was  turned  into 
darkness  and  the  moon  into  blood,  and 
Joel's  prophecy  was  limited  to  those  on 
whom  the  apostles  laid  their  hands,  while 
the  kingdom  came  in  its  glory.  But  this  is 
Disciple  theory  only.  Jesus  said,  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  within  (among)  you," 
before  Pentecost  day.  Paul  says,  "The 
krigdom  of  God  is  not  in  word,  but  in 


power."  Jesus  was  advocating  its  claims 
and  preaching  its  principles,  and  men  and 
women  were  obeying  just  as  truly  and 
really  before  as  they  ever  did  after  Pente- 
cost day.  "So  John  camo  into  all  the  coun- 
try about  Jordou  preaching  the  baptism  of 
repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Luke 
3:3.  "Thou  s'mll  givo  knowledge  of  salva- 
tion unto  his  people  by  the  remission  of 
sins."  Luke  1 : 77.  Here  John  is  preaching 
the  knowledge  of  salvation.  Paul  says, 
"The  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  sal- 
vation "  John  was  preaching  the  gospel. 
No  wonder  "John  did  baptize  in  the  wil- 
derness and  preach  tho  baptism  of  repent- 
ance for  the  remission  of  sins."  Mark  1:4. 
"Then  went  out  unto  him  all  Jerusalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him,  confess- 
ing their  sins."  Matt.  3:5,  j6.  Or,  as  stated 
elsewhere,  "  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
What  is  the  use  for  men  to  say,  then,  who 
pretend  to  believe  the  Bible,  that  the  first 
gospel  sermon  in  fact  was  preached  on  Pen- 
tecost. Faith  in  the  Savior  was  taught  by 
all  of  the  prophets ;  repentance  and  bap- 
tism for  the  remission  ol  sins  were  univer- 
sally conceded  to  be  right;  so  that  John 
never  had  a  single  controversy  with  the 
Jews  on  this  question.  Baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  taught.  So  much  for  the  pros- 
pect, and  process,  and  fact  gospel. 
(Time  called.) 


-    MR.   BRADEN'S   EIGHTH   SPEECH. 


MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — Does  the  constitution  of  the 
church  of  Christ  ordain  that  miraculous 
powers  shall  cease  out  of  the  church?  We 
announced  in  our  opening  speech  on  the 
first  proposition  that  this  question  is  the 
central  idea  of  the  discussion,  this  is  the 
vital  is^ue  of  the  debate.  If  my  opponent 
can  show  that  miraculous  powers  were  to 
remain  in  the  church,  he  has  a  basis  for 
his  claim  for  the  inspiration  of  Smith,  and 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  revelation, 
and  that  his  organization  can  possess  these 
miraculous  powers.  This  would  only,  how- 
ever, raise  the  real  issue.  Was  Smith  in- 
spired? Was  the  Book  of  Mormon  a  reve- 
lation? Does  his  organization  possess  these 
powers?  Proving  that  a  thing  is  possible 
does  not  prove  that  it  really  exists.  That 
is  a  question  of  fact  and  not  of  possibility 
If  we  prove  that  miraculous  powers  were  co 
cease  o-it  of  tho  church,  we  prove  that  they 
cannot  sxist  novr,  nnd  that  the  claim  that 
Joseph  Smith  wtt!  inspired — that  the  Book 


of  Mormon  is  a  revelation — that  Latter  Day- 
Saints  possess  miraculous  powers,  is  ah 
utter  impossibility.  I  propose  now  to  do 
this  so  thoroughly  as  to  leave  no  room  for 
cavil.  There  is  no  dispute  over  certain 
facts.  I.  There  is  a  Divine  person,  the  Holy 
Spirit.  II.  That  he  inspired  all  that  the 
Bible  declares  spoke,  wrote  or  acted  by  in- 
spiration from  Adam  to  Malachi.  III.  He 
inspired  all  who  spoke,  wrote  or  acted  by 
inspiration  from  John  the  Baptist  till  the 
last  one  died  to  whom  an  apostle  had  im- 
parted spiritual  power  by  the  imposition  of 
his  hands.  IV.  That  he  was  promised  by 
Joel  and  other  prophets— that  he  should  be 

Eoured  out  in  a  wonderful  manner  at  the 
eginning  of  the  Christian  dispensation. 
V.  That  he  'was  promised  in  baptism  by 
John  and  Jesus.  VI.  That  Jesus  promised 
him  as  the  Comforter  to  his  apostles.  VII. 
That  Peter  promised  him  to  all  whom  the 
Lord  should  call.  VIII.  That  Jesus  prom- 
ised him  in  his  last  commission  in  miracu- 
lous power,  to  .ill  of  his  apostles  who  should 


290 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


believe  and  preach  the  Gospel.  IX.  That 
ho  was  given  in  baptism  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  and  at  the  house  of  Cornelias. 
X.  That  he  was  imparted  by  the  imposition 
of  the  apostles'  hands,  and  existed  in  mira- 
culous powers  in  the  apostolic  churches. 

The  issue  is  this  :  Do  these  promises  ex- 
tend to  the  church  now?  Does  the  Holy 
Bpirit  exert  miraculous  power  now?  My 
opponent  firstclaimed  that  because  the  Holy 
Spirit,  exerted  miraculous  power  once,  he 
does  now.  We  replied,  that  is  no  proof. 
Because  God  once  exerted  miraculous  power 
in  creation  is  no  proof  that  he  does  now. 
He  next  claimed  that  because  he  was  prom- 
ised, and  because  it  was  prophesied  that  he 
would  exert  miraculous  power,  he  does  now. 
We  replied,  that  is  no  proof.  Because  the 
prophets  prophesied  of  Jesus  and  his  work, 
and  promised  him,  doesn't  prove  that  he  is 
on  earth  doing. his  work  now.  This  drove 
him  to  the  third  position.  That  the  prom- 
ises and  prophecies  include  the  church 
during  all  ages,  and  that  the  church  now 
possesses  these  miraculous  powers.  We 
took  up  the  promise  and  history  of  the  bap- 
tism in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  proved  that 
there  were  but  two  occasions  of  such  bap- 
tism and  that  it  cannot  and  does  not  exist 
now.  Persons  who  claim  it  are  as  absurd  in 
their  talk  as  if  they  were  to  claim  power  to 
create  by  miracle.  We  took  up  the  promise 
of  the  Comforter  and  proved  that  Jesus  was 
giving  his  last  lecture  to  his  apostles  before 
his  death.  He  was  about  to  leave  them. 
But  he  would  send  the  Comforter  to  take 
his  place  with  the  apostles,  as  he  had  been 
with  the  apostles.  This  Comforter  would 
recall  to  the  minds  of  the  apostles  what 
Jesus  had  said  to  the  apostles.  Jesus  had 
left  a  work  for  the  apostles  to  do.  A  work 
they  finished,  and  no  one  can  do  it  after  the 
apostles  died.  The  Comforter  was  to  qualify 
the  apostles  to  do  their  work,  this  work 
that  Jesus  leftjto  the  apostles  alone,  and  that 
none  but  an  apostle  can  do.  Hence,  he  is 
not  given  as  Comforter  to  any  one  now,  for 
no  one  has  the  work  to  do  that  he,  as  Com- 
forter, enabled  the  apostles  to  do.  We  have 
settled  that  issue. 

We  have  now  the  issue  on  the  miraculous 
power  promised  by  Joel,  Jesus  and  Peter, 
and  that  existed  in  the  church.  Joel's 
promise  was  to  all  flesh  without  limitation. 
Jesus  limited  his  promise  to  believing 
apostles:  His  promisewas  toapostleswho  be- 
lieved and  preached  the  Gospel.  Peter's  pro- 
mise was  limited  to  those  whom  God  should 
call.  Joel,  Jesus  and  Peter  were  proclaim- 
ing the  same  law.  The  Holy  Spirit  in  Joel 
and  Peter  and  the  Word  in  Jesus  do  not 
contradict.  As  the  time  was  ready  for  a 
more  complete  definition  of  the  promise, 
when  Jesus  announced  and  limited  tne 
promise  to  believing  apostles,  so  the  time 
was  ready  for  a  still  further  dolJnition  of 
the  promise,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Peter 
delned  and  further  limited  il.  and  he 
limited  it  to  those  that  God  should  call, 
and  those  alone.  The  sole  issue  now  is: 
How  did  God  call  them  ?  The  (Samaritans 
believed  had  bee;;  baptized,  were  pardoned, 


had  received  the  Spirit  In  his  ordinary  in- 
dwelling in  all  believers.  The  apostles  had 
to  come  down  and  lay  their  hands  on  them, 
and  call  them  before  they  could  enjoy  the 
promise  of  Joel  and  Peter.  Haul  of  Tarsus 
believed  and  was  baptized,  but  Ananias, 
a  special  apostle,  sent  for  this  purpose,  and 
with  power  to  work  miracles  and  prove  his 
divine  authority,  had  to  be  sent  to  Saul 
and  impart  the  Spirit  by  his  hands.  John's 
disciples  at  Ephesus  were  baptized  Then 
Paul  laid  hands  on  them  and  they  displayed 
miraculous  power  of  the  Spirit.  Timothy 
received  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  miraculous 
gift  by  Paul's -hands.  Thus  we  show  that 
the  promise  was  limited  to  those  that  God 
called.  .  And  he  never  called  them  except 
by  the  imposition  of  an  Apostle's  hands. 
We  have  no  instances  of  persons  exercising 
these  gifts  when  an  apostle  had  not  been 
with  them  to  impart  them.  We  have  no 
instance  that  any  but  an  apostle  imparted 
them.  We  have  no  instance  where  they 
descended  to  a  third  person.  An  apostle 
was  one  who  had  seen  Jesus.  Then  when 
the  last  one  who  had  seen  Jesus  died,  all 
power  to  impart  these  gifts  ceased.  When 
the  last  one  to  whom  an  apostle  had  im- 
parted them  by  his  hands  died  this  miracu- 
lous power  ceased.  Here  we  might  leave 
the  matter  :  we  have  settled  it  historically 
but  we  will  do  mure: 

All  of  God's  work  is  progressive  in  ita 
character.  All  of  his  work  has  a  purpose. 
This  purpose  determines.  I.  Time  of  be- 
ginning. II.  The  manner  in  which  the 
work  is  conducted.  III.  How  long  it  shall 
continue.  IV.  When  it  shall  cease.  The 
transgression  determined  the  beginning  of 
the  revelation  of  the  plan  of  redemption, 
contained  in  the  Bible.  The  necessities  of 
the  work  of  revealing  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion determined  the  manner  in  whirh  it  was 
done,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible.  The  object, 
the  revelation  of  a  perfect  scheme  of  re- 
demption, determined  how  long  it  should 
continue,  until  that  was  perfected.  The 
perfection  and  completion  of  this  plan  of  re- 
demption determined  when  inspiration 
should  cease.  It  ceased  when  the  revelation 
of  a  completed  plan  of  redemption  was  com- 
pleted. Just  as  God  created  animals  and 
plants  by  miraculous  power,  until  he  com- 
pleted his  work  of  creation  in  man,  and 
then  ceased  creation  by  miracle,  for  he  had 
completed  the  work  of  creation  by  miracle, 
and  left  the  introduction  of  animals  and 
plants  to  a  higher  law,  the  law  of  natural 
production;  so  when  God-had  by  miracu- 
lous power,  in  inspiration,  completed  the 
revelation  of  a  scheme  of  redemption  in  the 
New  Testament,  he  ceased  miraculous 
power  in  inspiration,  for  such  miraculous 
power  had  accomplished  its  work  when  the 
revelation  of  a  plan  of  redemption  was 
perfected.  As  he  accomplishes  all  intro- 
duction of  animals  and  plants  by  a  higher 
law,  natural  production,  soheaccomplishes 
all  results  in  salvation  by  a  higher  law, 
the  operation  of  perfect  divine  truth,  as 
recorded  in  tne  word  of  God.  As  God  is 
in  his  higher  law,  natural  production  in 


THE  BIIADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


291 


a  higher  sense  than  he  was  in  miraculous 
power  in  creation  ;  so  he  is  in  his  word  in  a 
higher  sense  than  he  was  in  miraculous 
power.  As  miraculous  creation  was  pre- 
paratory to  natural  law,  so  miraculous 
revelation  and  inspiration  were  preparatory 
to  a  higher  law  to  the  moral  power  of  truth 
in  God's  word.  One  error  we  want  to  re- 
move. As  God's  miraculous  power  in 
creation  was  not  a  partof  the  things  created, 
but  merely  what  produced  them,  and  ceased 
•when  that  work  was  completed,  so  miracu- 
lous power  in  inspiration  was  not  a  part  of 
the  things  it  produced,  the  word  of  God 
and  the  church  ;  but  what  produced  them, 
and  ceased  when  it  had  done  that  work. 

My  opponent  unwittingly  admitted  this 
when  he  used  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  as  an  illustration  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  illustration  is  a  most  ap- 
propriate one.  The  condition  of  settlements 
before  England  gave  them  charter  govern- 
ments corresponds  to  the  antediluvian 
dispensation  when  God  bad  individual  fol- 
lowers but  no  organization.  The  condition 
under  charter  governments  corresponds  to 
the  patriarchal  dispensation,  when  God  had 
families  as  the  organizations.  The  condi- 
tion under  the  Colonial  Congress  during  the 
revolution,  corresponds  to  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation, when  there  was  a  nation  with 
whom  God  was  dealing.  The  condition 
from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  to  the  comple- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  com- 
pletion of  the  organization  of  the  church 
under  it,  corresponds  to  the  condition  from 
the  recognition  of  our  independence  on 
through  the  forming  of  a  confederacy  under 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  calling  of 
a  constitutional  convention,  the  framing  of 
the  constitution  until  the  government  was 
organized  under  it.  The  apostles  were  the 
constitution-making  power.  Christ  gave 
the  constitution  through  them.  The  apos- 
tles and  those  they  ordained,  and  those  to 
whom  they  gave  miraculous  gifts  were 
the  government  under  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation. Miraculous  power  was  consti- 
tution-making power  and  provisional  power 
to  rule  the  church  during  that  provisional 
period.  Ir  supplied  inspired  teaching  when 
an  apostle  was  not  present,  and  when  one 
was,  until  the  completed  constitution,  the 
New  Testament  was  completed  and  the 
government  constituted  under  it.  Miracu- 
lous power  was  constitution-making  power 
and  not  what  was  made  a  part  of  the  con- 
stitution. It  ceased  when  the  constitution 
was  made,  as  the  constitutional  convention 
ceased  when  the  constitution  was  made. 

My  opponent  argues  thafc  we  need  mir- 
aculous power  now.  As  well  say  we  need 
constitution-making  powers;  in  tho  shape 
of  a  constitutional  convention  to  be  per- 
petual, and  that  it  should  be  forever  mak- 
ing constitution,  when  we  havo  completed 
the  noiiMi'tutioo.  He  says  wt»  made  the 
constitution  uie  work  of  tho  apostles.  We 
repiy  one  work  of  <iod  through  theapoxtlcs, 
just  as  a  i-onstiuuiou  is  a  work  of  ttie 
people  through  their  delegates.  We  do  not 
remove  God  out  of  the  church,  any  more 


than  we  remove  the  people  out  of  the  gov- 
ernment, when  we  claim  that  as  the  people 
now  act  through  the  constitution  they  have 
ordained,  God  acts  through  the  constitu- 
tion he  has  ordained,  the  New  Testament. 
My  opponent  seems  to  think  that  the  only 
way  that  God  can  act  is  through  miracu- 
lous power.  As  well  say  that  the  only  way 
that  the  people  can  act  is  through  constitu- 
tion-making power.  As  the  people  ai-e  act- 
ing through  the  constitution,  in  a  higher 
sense,  than  they  did  when  they  were 
making  the  constitution,  so  God  is*  acting 
in  a  higher  sense,  through  his  word,  than 
when  he  was  constitution-making  through 
his  miraculous  power.  We  have  now  nar- 
rowed the  question  to  what  does  the  con- 
stitution ordain?  Does  the  completed  con- 
stitution of  the  church  ordain  miraculous 
powers  as  a  part  of  the  organization,  the 
permanent  form  and  powers  of  the  church. 
It  can  do  this  in  two  ways.  It  can  ordain 
officers  whose  powers  are  miraculous.  Or 
it  can  ordain  miraculous  powers.  My  op- 
ponent claims  that  it  has  done  both.  We 
have  examined  all  his  proof  especially  Eph. 
iv.  I  Cor.  xii,  xiii,  xiv.  But  we  will  not 
review  them  and  prove  that  they  teach  ex- 
actly the  reverse  of  his  claim.  Eph.  iv. 
Paul  declares  that  in  the  constitution  of  the 
church  there  is  provided,  I.  One  God.  II. 
One  Lord.  III.  One  Spirit.  IV.  One  faith, 
the  faith,  the  scriptures,  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints,  and  the  completed 
constitution  of  the  church.  V.  One  bap- 
tism. VI.  One  hope.  VII.  One  body,  the 
completed  church  organization,  organized 
under  the  completed  constitution.  VIII. 
One  name.  He  says  that  when  Christ 
ascended  out  of  Hades,  he  led  forth  a  mul- 
titude of  captives,  and  when  he  ascended  on 
high,  to  the  right  hand  of  his  Father,  he 
gave  gifts  unto  men.  This  was  done  before 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  He  gave  to  men  who 
were  bis  followers,  some  men  to  be  apostles, 
some  to  be  prophets,  some  to  be  evangel- 
ists, some  to  be  shepherds,  some  to  be  teach- 
ers. It  is  freely  conceded  that  the  very  of- 
fice of  apostle  and  prophet  required  miracu- 
lous powers  in  the  day  of  the  apostles.  The 
questions  are: — Do  apostles,  and  prophets 
exist  now?  Does  the  completed  constitu- 
tion ordain  them  in  the  church?  Does  the 
constitution  ordain  miraculous  powers  to 
evangelists,  shepherds  and  teachers?  This 
is  the  real  issue. 

Because  they  existed  or  were  given  once 
does  not  prove  their  existence  now.  Because 
they  were  needed  once  does  not  prove  that 
they  are  needed  now.  It  is  a  question  of 
fact.  We  object  to  the  claim  that  they  ex- 
ist now.  Apostles,  prophets  and  miracu- 
lous powers  were  constitution-making  pow- 
ers, and  ceased  when  the  constitution  was 
completed,  and  constitution-making  ceased, 
because  it  was  completed.  The  constitu- 
tion declares  it  shall  cease.  It  says  these 
gifts — miraculous  gifts — were  given  "for 
the  perfecting  of  the  Saints  unto  the  work 
of  the  ministry,"  and  were  given  "for  the 
purpose  of  building  up  the  body  of  Christ." 
Tho  body  of  Christ  is  his  church.  They 


292 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


were  given  for  the  purpose  of  building  up, 
organizing  this  body,  the  church,  and  ceased 
when  that  was  done,  when  the  organiza- 
tion was  completed.  The  apostle  declares 
they  were  to  exist  "until  we  all  came  into 
the  unity  of  the  faith,"  the  one  faith,  the 
faith  delivered  unto  the  Saints,  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  "faith"  means  the  Scriptures 
as  it  did  above  in  verse  5,  and  it  does  in 
Jude;  "the faith  delivered  unto  theSaints." 
These  were  to  continue  until  we  came  into 
the  unity  |of  the  faith,  into  the  one  faith, 
until  the  word  of  God  is  completed.  These 
gifts  were  given  until  we  attain  through 
the  one  faith  to  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
Son  of  God.  Until  we  attain  to  a  full  grown 
man.  This  man  is  the  one  body  Paul  men- 
tions above,  the  church.  They  are  to  con- 
tinue until  the  church  organization  is  com- 
pleted. The  constitution  tells  just  how 
long  they  were  to  remain.  It  declares  they 
were  to  cease  when  that  was  done.  The 
constitution  declares  that  they  shall  con- 
tinue only  until  the  constitution,  the  one 
faith,  is  completed,  and  the  one  body  is 
organized  under  it. 

We   come   now  to   the  last  passage   of 
Scriptures,  and  one  that  settles  the  matter 
forever.    I  Cor.  xii,  xiii,  xiv,  Paul  in  these 
chapters  points  out  certain  errors  of  the 
Corinthians  in  regard  to  spiritual  gifts.    I. 
That  they  were  the  highest,  the  grandest, 
the  especial  things  of  the  gospel.  My  oppo- 
nent's error.  II.   That  men  were  to  be  hon- 
ored especially  for  them.     III.    Errors  in 
using  them.    He  tells  us  in  the  XII  chapter 
God  gave  miraculous  gifts  as  follows:    I. 
Word  of  wisdom.    II.  Word  of  knowledge. 
III.  Faith.  IV.  Gifts  of  healing.  V.  Work- 
ingof  powers.    VI.  Prophecy.    VII.  Power 
to  discern  spirits.    VIII.  Power  to  speak  in 
unknown  and  different  tongues.  IX.  Power 
to  interpret  these  unknown  and  different 
tongues.     In  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter 
he  tells  us  that  by  giving  these  miraculous 
gifts,  God  has  set  in  the  church — I.  Apos- 
tles.    II.    Prophets.     III.    Teachers.     IV. 
Powers.    V.  Gifts  of  healing.     VI.  Helps. 
VII.    Wise   counsels.      VIII.    Those    who 
speak  with  tongues.    IX.  Those  who  inter- 
pret tongues.    He  then  corrects  their  error 
in  each  one,  claiming  that  his  gift  was  best, 
and   that  he  should  be  honored  above  all 
other  possessors  of  gifts.    He  does  it  by  the 
beautiful  figure  of  the  human   body  and  its 
organs.     He  then  corrects  their  error,  the 
error  of  my  opponent  that  spiritual  gifts, 
on  which  they  prided  themselves,  were  the 
highest,  greatest  and   especial    features  of 
the  religion  of  Christ.     He    says   "desire 
earnestly    the    best  spiritual    gifts"    now 
while  they  are  needed,  "but  nevertheless  I 
show  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way"  than 
the  exercise  of  the  best  of  these  spiritual 
gifts.    That  is  his  meaning.    The  thing  he 
has  been  discussing  is  the  exercise  of  these 
gifts.  He  says  desire  the  best  of  them  while 
this  is  the  way,  but  I  will  show  unto  you 
a  more  excellent  way  than  the  highest  exer- 
cise of  the   best  of   these  spiritual    gifts. 
Observe,    then,  that  Paul  says  there  is  a 
more  excellent  way  than  the  highest  exer- 


cise of  the  best  of  these  spiritual  gifts.  In 
this  he  differs  from  Mormons,  that  regard 
these  spiritual  gifts  as  the  highest,  the 
greatest  element  of  the  religion  of  Christ,  iu 
fact  as  the  religion  of  Christ. 

Paul   unfolds    this   more  excellent  wav. 
He  declares   that  Christian  love,  Christian 
spirit  and  character  are  the  aim  of  the  Gos- 
pel, as  he  says  to  Timothy  that  "the  end  of 
the   commandment    is   love  out   of  a  pure 
heart,  and  unfeigned  faith."    All  gifts,  all 
things  are  worthless  unless  they  produce 
Christian   love,  and  are    valuable  only  as 
they  produce  it.     Miraculous   power"  itself 
cannot  do  this,  for  as  we  have  showed,  it  is 
not  a  moral  influence.   It  produces  no  moral 
change.     Paul  after  declaring   that  spirit- 
ual gifts  are  worthless  unless  they  produce 
Christian  love,  Christian    spirit  and  char- 
acter, unfolds  the  more  excellent  way  (than 
the  best  spiritual  gifts)  to  produce  Christian 
love.    As  they  can  produce  it  only  as  they 
reveal  truth,  that  alone  can  produce  it ;  the 
more  excellent  way  is  a  perfect  revelation 
of  the  truth  that  alone  can  produce  Chris- 
tian  love.     Paul    declares  Christian    love, 
Christian  spirit  and  character  are  to  remain 
for  ever,  and  that  what  will  produce  them 
best  will  remain  for  ever.    He  declares  all 
prophecying,  all  utterance  by  inspiration, 
shall  cease  ;  all  miraculous  speaking  with 
tongues,  all  signs  of  miraculous  power  shall 
cease;  all  knowledge  imparted  miraculously 
shall  cease.    My  opponent  admits  that  they 
shall  cease.    The  query  arises    "  When?" 
That   is    the   sole   issue.      Common  sense 
would  say  that  as  Paul  is  comparing  the 
state  of  the  Church  when  the  best  of  the 
miraculous  gifts  exist,   with  a  more  excel- 
lent   way  for  the   Church;  that    the  more 
excellent  way  is  when  they  cease.    That  as 
Paul  says  they    are   valueless,  unless  they 
produce  Christian  love,  they  cease  when  the 
completed  word  of  God,  the  perfect  way  of 
producing  Christian  love  is  finished.    Chil- 
dren of  God  are  made  "perfect  in  teaching, 
in  reproof,  in  correction,  in   instruction  in 
righteousness,  and  are  made  perfect,  and 
thorough  lyfurnisheduutoevery  good  work," 
not  by  miraculous  gifts,  but  by  the  Script- 
ures.   Paul  says,  "For  we  know  in  part  we 
prophecy  in  part."    That  is  during   the  ex- 
istence o*f  the  best  of  these  spiritual  giftsj, 
knowledge    imparted    by    inspiration   was 
but  a  fragment  at  each  time,  was  partial, 
prophecyiug  was   partial,    but  a   fragment 
of  the  truth  was  uttered  at  each  time  when 
prophecying    was  done.    "But  when   that 
which  is   perfect  is  come,  that  which  is  in 
part  shall   be  done  away."    The  question' 
now  is: — What    is   that  which  is   perfect? 
That  is  the  only  issue.  Common  sense  would 
say  thatas  the  partial  is  partial  revelations, 
that  are  the  highest  exercise  of  these  spir- 
itual gifts,  that  the  perfect  would  be  com- 
plete revelations.    The  partial  that  is  to  be 
done  away  is  partial   revelation,  by  means 
of  miraculous  gifts.    The    perfect  is  com- 
pleted revelations,  when  these   gifts  pass 
away.    As  Paul  is  discussing  the  condition 
of  the  Church,  and  mentions,  as  the  partial, 
the  condition  of  the  church,  when  those  mi- 


THE    BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


293 


raculous  gifts  exist;  the  perfect  is  when 
the  partial — these  gifts — have  passed  away, 
the  condition  of  the  church  under  the  com- 
pleted revelations,  when  these  gifts  have 
•ceased.  That  is  the  perfect,  the  more  ex- 
cellent way  that  fhe  apostle  was  to  show. 
My  opponent  admits  miraculous  gifts  are  to 
cease  hut  claims  it  is  after  the  resurrection 
has  mado  us  perfect,  for  our  eternal  resur- 
rected state.  I  object.  The  apostle  is  not 
discussing  the  eternal  state,  but  the  state 
of  the  church,  He  is  not  contrasting  the  state 
of  the  church  during  all  time  with  the  eter- 
nal state.  But  the  state  of  the  church  un- 
der the  best  of  these  miraculous  gifts,  with 
the  state  of  the  church  when  they  shall 
•cease,  and  as  the  imperfect  state  was  on 
«arth,  the  perfect  state  is  on  earth -as  the 
imperfect  was  when  these  gifts  existed,  the 
perfect  is  when  they  shall  not  exist.  Kelley 
foists  in  the  idea  of  the  perfection  of  saints 
in  the  eternal  dispensation,  after  the  resur- 
rection, out  of  all  connection,  sense  and 
Jogic.  It  is  preposterously  absurd  and  out  of 
place. 

What  is  that  which  is  perfect?  As  the 
partial  was  partial  revelations,  by  spiritual 
/gifts,  the  perfect  was  a  perfect  revelation, 
when  they  had  ceased.  "The  law  of  the 
<iod  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul."  There 
we  have  the  perfect.  "The  Scriptures  are 
perfect  for  teaching  reproof,  correction  for 
instruction  in  righteousness,  for  they  make 
the  man  of  God  perfect,  and  thoroughly 
furnished  for  every  good  work."  There  we 
have  the  perfect.  Paul  says  in  Ephesians 
these  gifts  are  to  remain  until  we  attain  to 
the  unity  of  the  faith,  the  one  faith,  God's 
completed  word.  Then  we  have  what  is 
perfect.  That  settles  the  matter.  For  we 
•do  not  contrast  imperfect  revelation  with  a 
thing  entirely  different,  the  state  of  the 
righteous  after  the  resurrection;  but  we 
contrast  imperfect  revelation  under  miracu- 
lous gifts  with  perfect  revelation  after  these 
gifts  have  ceased,  having  perfected  the  re- 
velation. Paul  now  returns  to  his  figure  in 
the  xii  chapter,  where  he  compared  the 
•church  to  a  body  and  these  gifts  to  the 
organs  of  the  body.  He  personifies  the 
church  by  himself.  He  puts  the  man,  the 
body,  in  the  first  person.  He  says,  "When 
I  was  a  child,  I  felt  as  a  child."  That  is 
the  nhurch  that  he  personifies  by  himself  is 
in  its  childish  condition  while  receiving 
the  best  of  these  gifts.  They  are  partial 
and  it  can  only  speak  as  a  child.  Its  reve- 
lations are  partial  childish.  He  continues 
"But  when  I  became  a  man  I  put  away 
childish  things."  That  is  when  the  church 
which  he  personifies  by  himself  becomes  a 
man  it  will  put  away  these  childish  things, 
these  partial  things,  when  prophesying,  in- 
spiration and  miracle  working  shall  cease. 
"Now  we  see  in  the  mirror  darkly." 
Our  revelations  are  partial,  childish, 
and  they  are  an  imperfect  mirror.  We 
see  imperfectly  "But  then,"  when  partial 
things,  these  revelations  and  gifts  have 
ceased,  ''we  shall  see  face  to  face." 
As  James  say*  :  "A  mail  who  is  a  hearer  of 
the  word  and  not  a  doer  is  like  a  man  who 


beholds  his  face  in  a  mirror  and  forgets 
what  manner  of  man  he  was.  But  he  that 
looks  unto  the  perfect  "Law  of  Liberty" 
(God's  word)  and  continues  there  shall 'be 
blessed."  The  mirror  is  God's  perfected 
word.  The  mirror  is  imperfect  during  these 
partial  revelations.  It  will  be  perfect  when, 
the  word  is  completed  aiid  they  have  passed 
away.  "Now,"  under  these  partial  reve- 
lations, "  I  know  in  part."  The  Church 
that  he  personifies  knows  in  part  under 
these  partialrevelatious.  "But  then,"  when 
the  word  is  completed,  when  the  perfect, 
the  completed  word  has  come,  when  the 
mirror — God's  word — is  perfect,  "T  shall 
know"  the  Church  shall  know  "even  as  I 
am  also  known."  The  Church  shall  know 
what  it  ought  to  be,  after  a  perfect  revela- 
tion has  been  made,  as  it  in  known  to 
God,  as  he  knows  it,  and  intends  it  to  be, 
and  as  he  will  reveal  it,  and  the  Church 
shall  then  know  it.  Paul  concludes  that 
perfect  faith,  God's  perfect  word,  hope, 
God's  perfect  promises,  Christian  lovo, 
produced  by  God's  perfect  word  will  remain 
for  ever.  With  this  harmonizes  the  idea 
that  as  God  ceased  miracle  in  creation,  so 
he  ceased  miracle  in  revelation,  when  each 
had  accomplished  its  work.  In  each  case 
miracle  prepared  for  a  higher  work  of  God 
by  operation  of  perfect  law.  With  this 
harmonises  the  fact  that  as  revelation 
ceased  with  Malachi  when  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  completed,  until  Christianity 
came,  so  revelation  ceased  when  the  New 
Testament  was  completed,  until  the  next 
dispensation,  the  eternal,  is  introduced. 
With  this  harmonizes  the  idea  that  consti- 
tution-making ceases  when  the  consti- 
tution has  been  perfected.  With  this 
harmonizes  the  idea  that  none  but 
an  apostle  could  impart  this  mirac- 
ulous power,  this  constitution  ma- 
king and  provisional  power.  With  this 
harmonizes  the  idea  that  this  power  never 
descended  to  a  third  person.  With  it  har- 
monizes the  idea  that  when  the  last  one,  to 
whom  an  apostle  imparted  this  power  by  his 
hands  died,  it  ceased.  It  harmonizes  every 
portion  of  God's  word.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  sense.  With  it  harmonizes  the  idea 
that  the  religion  of  Christ  embraces  all  re- 
ligious ideas  and  expresses  each  perfectly, 
and  man  now  needs  no  higher  or  better 
revelation  of  these  truths.  He  can  learn 
more  of  their  scope  and  grasp,  but  never 
outgrow  them.  As  man  has  reached  abso- 
lute truth,  universal  principles  in  the  law 
of  gravitation  and  in  the  Copernican  law  of 
the  universe,  so  he  has  reached  absolute 
truth  in  religion,  in  Christianity.  As  man 
cannot  outgrow  the  law  of  gravitation,  so 
he  can  never  outgrow  the  infinite  truths  of 
Christianity.  As  man  only  learns  more  of 
the  scope  and  grasp  of  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion, so  he  can  only  learn  more  of  the  scope 
and  grasp  of  Christianity,  of  its  truths  re- 
vealed in  the  New  Testament.  As  he  can 
never  outgrow  the  law  of  gravitation,  and 
needs  no  other  law.  so  he  can  never  out- 
grow the  revelations  in  the  New  Testament, 
needs  no  more  revolution..  Finally  we  have 


294 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


challenged  our  opponent  to  name  one  new 
Idea  or  truth  that  all  his  pretended  revela- 
tions have  given  to  the  world.  He  cannot 
give  one  We  have  had  no  new  revelation. 
We  have  challenged  him  to  name  one  single 
truth  that,  his  pretended  revelations  have 
given  in  a  better  manner  than  in  the  New 
Testament.  He  cannot  name  one.  We 
have  no  new  revelations.  What  is  not  sto- 
len from  the  Bible  is  balderdash.  What  is 
stolen  is  mangled  by  the  thief.  It  is  proof 
that  his  inspiration  is  the  ass  trying  to  wear 
the  skin  of  the  dead  lion.  After  declaring 
that  the  New  Testament  is  the  constitution 
of  the  chureh  given  by  God  to  the  church, 
my  opponent  attempts  to  destroy  the  fatal 
effect  of  the  analogy  on  his  theory  by  rais- 
ing the  objection  that  as  the  people  who 
appointed  the  delegates  to  frame  our  con- 
stitution had  to  ratify  their  work,  so  God 
who  appointed  the  apostles  a?  his  delegates 
would  have  to  ratify  their  work.  The  peo- 
ple's delegates  were  nut  inspired  and  infal- 
lible, foil's  delegates  were.  The  Mormon 
God  and  his  inspired  instrument,  Joe  Smith, 
weresofallible  in  giving  the  constitution  of 
the  Mormon  organization,  that  he  has  had 
to  revise  that  last  and  most  perfect  work  of 
inspiration  from  title-page  to  finis.  He  has 
made  seventeen  changes  on  one  page,  and 
over  rive  thousand  in  all.  As  the  delegates, 
the  apostles,  who  gave  our  constitution,  the 
New  Testament,  were  not  inspired  by  the 
Mormon  God  but  by  Jehovah,  their  work 
needed  no  revision  or  ratification. 

The  way  in  which  my  opponent  will  de- 
liberately falsify  God's  word  when  itcontra- 
dicts  his  errors  can  be  seen  in  his  falsification 
of  the  passages  we  quoted.  Peter  declares 
that  those  he  addressed  were  kings  and 
priests  and  had  been  made  so  before  he 
wrote.  John  declares  that  Christ  has 
washed  those  of  whom  he  spoke  and  made 
them  kings  and  priests.  Both  are  past. 
Kelley  deliberately  falsifies  the  language 
and  declares  it  is  to  be  done  in  our  glorified 
condition.  He  claims  that  because  saints 
are  called  kings  and  priests  in  that  state, 
they  cannot  be  saints  now.  He  falsifies  the 
word  of  God  to  avoid  its  flat  contradiction 
of  his  hobbies. 

By  what  authority  does  my  opponent 
assert  that  the  passage,  "Desire  earnestly 
the  greater  gifts,  and  a  still  more  excellent 
way  I  show  unto  you,"  has  been  transposed 
by 'copy  ing?  He  has  not  a  manuscript,  a 
commentator  or  scholar  to  sustain  him.  He 
impudently  changes  it  in  violation  of  all 
authority  and  the  sense  of  the  context  of  the 
passage,  as  he  impudently  changes  the  tense 
from  present  to  perfect,  the  time  from  future 
to  past,  and  reads,  "I  have  shown,"  instead 
of  ''I  show."  A  more  impudent,  deliberate 
falsification  of  God's  word  was  never  per- 
petrated. Sealing  of  the  Spirit  and  the 
miraculous  influence  of  the  Spirit  are  differ- 
ent. One  is  not  a  moral  influence,  the  other 


is.  Each  one  is  sealed  for  himself  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  not  by  the  miraculous 
power  of  the  Spirit.  That  he  assumes,  iu 
flat  contradiction  of  God's  word.  Moses 
declared  his  law  was  perfect  for  the 
purpose  for  which  he  gave  it,  to  pre- 
pare for  a  better — the  law  of  Christ.  The 
teaching  in  each  grade  in  a  school  may  be 
perfect  for  its  purpose  to  prepare  for  a  better 
grade,  and  the  last  prepares  fora  still  better 
state  when  the  pupil  becomes  a  man  and  is  in 
school  no  more.  The  building  of  t.he church 
is  going  on  now.  It  is  not  in  the  sense  in 
which  he  uses  the  term.  Our  government 
is  not  being  organized  now.  We  are  not 
adding  to  our  officers.  Nor  do  we  have  a 
Constitutional  Convention  in  session.  New 
persons  are  succeeding  those  who  pass  away. 
The  number  of  States  and  citizens  is  being 
ever  increased,  but  our  government  is  not 
changed  one  particle.  So  the  church  re- 
ceives new  members  and  sends  out  mission- 
aries, but  is  not  changed  one  particle. 
Christ  through  the  apostles  perfected  the 
church. 

The  royal  Priesthood  of  Peter  and  John 
was  not  the  Melchizedek  priesthood,  for 
Christ  was  the  only  priest  of  that  order, 
and  had  no  successor.  I  can  not  sufficiently 
denounce  the  falsehood  that  we  have  no 
Holy  Spirit  in  our  church.  We  have  him 
as  sons  of  God,  in  accoidance  with  God's 
word,  and  do  not  set  up,  a  lying  claim  that 
any  Joe  Smith  has  or  had  him  in  miracu- 
lous power,  when  the  Bible  declares  such 
miracles  have  ceased.  Our  church  is  not 
another  church  from  the  Apostolic  church, 
but  the  same  church  having,  as  the  apostle 
declared,  laid  to  one  side  childish  things, 
and  having  entered  on  the  more  excellent 
way.  WTe  have  Christ  in  his  word  and  law, 
just  as  God  ordains.  Mormons  cut  off  Christ 
the  head,  and  substitute  that  fraud.  Joe 
Smith;  gouge  out  the  eyes,  and  substitute 
Mormon  impostors  as  prophets,  nut  off  the 
ears  and  substitute  Mormon  frauds  as 
apostles.  They  cut  off  every  member  of 
God  set  in  the  church,  and  substitute  their 
frauds  and  load  the  mangled  remains  with 
councillors  and  over  twenty  monstrosities 
of  their  own  manufacture  of  which  the  Bible 
knows  nothing  and  call  the  monstrosity  the 
church. 

We  have  now  placed  before  you  the  sim- 
ple Apostolic  church  with  its  eight  founda- 
tion stones.  I.  One  God.  II.  One  Lord. 
III.  One  Holy  Spirit.  IV.  One  faith— the 
faith,  God's  word.  V.  One  immersion. 
VI  One  hope.  VII.  One  body — the  church 
of  Christ.  VIII.  One  name— "Christian," 
for  individuals,  and  "Church  of  Christ,"  foi 
the  organization.  The  building  is  made  of 
living  stones  saints,  deacons  or  (servants, 
overseers  and  evangelists  who  are  made 
perfect  by  God's  wont.  It  is  the  perfect 
man  as  God  perfected  it. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


295 


MR.  KELLEY'S  CLOSING   SPEECH. 


GENTIGMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
<3rENTTi,fci.vEN  : — Let  me  call  your  at- 
tention At  once  to  the  misrepresen- 
tation ol"  my  reference  to  the  call- 
ing- of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  in  Acts  13  :  2- 
3.  My  opponent  stated  that  this  laying  on 
of  hands  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  what  did  he  say  that 
for  ?  Who  said  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
conferring  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  position 
which  I  took  was  that  it  was  for  the  purpose 
of  conferring  authority  upon  these  parties 
to  enable  them  to  discharge  the  duties  to 
which  they  were  called  as  ministers.  My 
position  differs  from  my  opponent  in  this  : — 
He  and  his  church  think  it  was  but  an  idle 
or  void  form;  that  there  was  no  special  au- 
thority conferred  by  the  act  of  the  elders  at 
Antioch  laying  their  hands  upon  these  two 
persons,  for  elders  did  not  have  the  right  to 
lay  on  hands  to  confer  the  right  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  confirmation  as  did  the  apostles, 
or  to  confer  especial  authority  by  virtue  of 
the  authority  of  this  Holy  Spirit,  in  setting 
persons  apurt  for  the  work  of  the  ministry. 
But  I  claim  that  the  facts  are  against  them. 
That  this  compliance  with  the  ordinance  in 
the  instance  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  at  this 
time,  was  that  they  might  receive  some- 
thing of  the  right  of  authority,  which  they 
had  not.  That  it  is  a  similar  case  to  the 
one  which  I  presented  from  1  Tim.  4:  14; 
and  of  which  my  opponent  has  taken  no  no- 
tice, where,  Paul  calls  Timothy's  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  his  (Timothy's)  ordina- 
tion under  the  hands  of  the  elders  rre  had  in 
fact  received  something,  and  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  in  those  officia- 
ting. "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery — 
[eldership]."  Here  is  an  emphatic  declara- 
tion that  there  was  in  this  ordinance  of 
the  imposition  of  hands  a  conferring  of 
gifts. 

But  Braden  says,  they  (his  church)  lay  on 
hands  to  merely  set  men  apart,  but  that 
they  do  not  confer  anything.  No  author- 
ity is  conferred  thereby.  This  is  as  I  have 
claimed  all  the  time ;  I  knew  that  they  did 
not  by  so  doing  confer  anything,  for  they 
have  nothing  to  confer; — not  being  elders 
in  fact  in  the  church  of  God.  But  it  is  en- 
tirely different  to  the  action  and  methods  of 
the  <;hurch  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
therefore,  proves  beyond  a  doubt,  by  Bra- 
den's  admission,  that  his  church  is  not  in 
harmony  in  faith  and  practice  with  the  New 
Testament  church. 

In  the  early  church,  as  I  have  shown, 
there  was  also  a  regular  order  in  the  calling 
of  the  minister,  as  by  the  example  of  Jesus, 
(not  the  congregation,)  calling  the  apostles. 
Math.  10:38.  "Pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of 
the  harvest,  that  'he  will  send  forth  labor- 
ers into  the  harvest."  And  Luke,  6: 12-13. 


"And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  he 
went  out  into  a  mountain  to  pray,  and  con- 
tinued ail  night  in  prayer  to  God.  And 
when  it  was  day,  he  called  unto  him  hia 
disciples,  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve, 
whom  also  he  named  apostles."  And  also 
as  contained  in  Luke  10:  1.  "After  these 
things  the  Lord  appointed  other  severity 
also,  and  sent  them  two  and  two  before  his 
face  into  every  city  and  place,  whither  he 
himself  would  come."  •  In  Acts  1  :  15-20 
verses,  it  is  recorded  that  when  an  office  in 
the  church  was  vacant,  as  I  have  before 
fully  shrwn  you,  the  apostles  applied  to 
the  proper  authority,  and  head  of  the 
church,  for  instruction  as  to  the  filling  of  it. 
As  Jesus  did,  so  did  they,  "Pray  the  Lord 
of  the  harvest  that  he  may  send  forth  the 
laborers."  They  did  not  usurp  the  prerog- 
atives of  the  "Lord  of  the  harvest,"  and  go 
themselves  ;  or  send  others  to  their  liking, 
as  do  the  congregations  of  the  so-called 
Christian  or  Campbellite  churches. 

So  these  apostles  pray  when  they  are  lo 
select  a  minister:  "Thou,  Lord,  which  know- 
est  the  hearts  of  all  men,  shew  whether  of 
these  two  thou  hast  chosen."  They  knew 
well  enough  that  it  was  not  their  right  or 
place  to  call  and  make  apostles,  but  that 
the  officers  in  the  church  had  to  be  chosen 
by  the  great  head  of  the  church.  So  it  was 
in  the  instance  in  Acts  13:2.  "The  Holy 
Ghost  said,  separate  me,  Barnabas  and 
Saul,  for  the  work  whereuito  1  have  called 
them."  Not  the  congregation  called  them, 
as  Braden  holds,  but  as  God  calls  them. 
This  also,  as  I  have  shown,  accords  with 
the  practice  and  faith  of  Paul  as  setforth  in 
his  first  letter  to  the  saints  at  Corinth,  7:17: 
"But  as  God  hath  distributed  to  every  man, 
as  the  Lord  hath  called  every  one,  so  let 
him  walk.  And  so  ordain  I  in  all  churches." 

But  is  this  the  way  with  Braden's  church  ? 
Oh,  no.  As  the  imperfect,  short-sighted 
and  often  fanatical  congregation  calls,  his 
church  ordains.  The  apostle,  as  I  have 
shown,  believed  in  the  doctrine,  that  when 
Christ  ascended  up  on  high  "he  gave  gifts 
unto  men."  And.  that  these  gifts  were  for 
the  purpose  of  qualifying  them  for  the 
duties  they  were  called  to  in  the  church,  both 
as  officers  and  lay-members;  and  that  a  man 
could  only  be  properly  ordained  to  an  office 
when  it  was  done  in  accordance  with  the 
distribution  of  these  gifts  ;  and  hence,  he 
must  wait  till  the  Lord  designated  where 
the  gift  should  be  bestowed  as  he  instructs 
in  Rom.  12:6  and  8 :  "Having,  then,  gifts 
differing  according  to  the  grace  that  is  given 
untous,  whether  of  prophecy, let  us  prophesy 
according  to  the  proportion  of  faith.  Or 
ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  ministering ; 
or  he  that  teacheth  on  teaching,"  etc.  The 
idea,  as  before  pointed  out,  is  full  and  clear; 
men  must  work  in  accordance  with  the  gift 
and  calling  of  God  unto  them,  and  hence 


298 


THE  BE  A  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


mu«?t  wait  till  God  designates  the  gift  of 
their  calling  before  they  can  properly  beset 
apart  to  act. 

This  brings  to  my  mind  his  comment  on 
the  declaration  of  the  apostle  in  Heb.  5: 
"And  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  him- 
self but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was 
Aaron. "  Paul  did  so  teach,  and  it  is  in 
harmony  with  the  instruction  given  upon 
this  calling  of  the  ministry  by  him,  and 
Jesus,  acd  all  of  the  apostles  whose  words 
we  have. 

"But,"  says  Braden,  "Paul  referred  to 
the  rule  and  requirement  under  the  Mosaic 
economy."  What  does  he  refer  to  it  for? 
Why  did  you  not  answer  that?  He  refers 
to  it  as  a  basis  of  argument  to  show  to  the 
Jewish  Saints  how  they  must  act  under  the 
later  law  ;  maintaining  that  the  same  rule 
had  been  adopted  under  the  order  in  the 
Church  in  his  time,  and  must  be  followed 
as  in  the  case  of  Aaron.  This  is  shown  in 
the  next  verse:  "So  also  Christ  glorified 
not  himself  to  be  made  a  high  priest;  [he 
did  not  call  himself  nor  permit  the  congre- 
gation to  do  it;]  but  he  that  said  unto  him, 
'Thou  art  my  Son,  to-day  have  I  begotten 
thee'."  As  he  saith  also  in  another  place, 
"Thou  art  a  priest  forever,  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek."  This  application  of  his 
own  argument,  by  the  apostle,  is  too  plain 
to  be  gainsaid.  Jesus  would  not  call  him- 
self to  be  a  minister ;  a  congregation  could 
not  properly  do  it,  but  he  must  be  called  as 
was  Aaron,  by  revelation  through  the  Holy 
Ghost  that  giveth  utterance.  This  same 
Jesus  was  in  his  obedience  and  observance 
of  the  rules  of  law  and  government,  to  be 
"our  example  in  all  things."  Therefore, 
"  No  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself, 
but  he  that  wus  called  of  God  as  was 
Aaron.'-  Oan  ,-oa  see  that  Paul  was  teach- 
ing and  laying  down  a  governing  ] 

r,Mr. 


in  tne  Christian  economy  now,  Mr.  Braden? 
But  it  is  the  reverse  of  your  system  as  ad- 
mitted by  yourself.  Again  he  says,  "That 
if  Joseph  Smith  had  denied  revelation, 
there  would  have  been  no  Mormonism,  nor 
Mormon  polygamy." 

Now  is  this  not  a  sweltering  argument? 
How  does  it  come  that  the  belief  by  Mr. 
Smith  in  revelation  brought  polygamy  in 
Utah,  when  the  belief  by  Paul  and  Peter 
in  revelation  did  not  bring  polygamy  among 
the  followers  of  Nicolas,  one  of  the  Seven. 
ordained  under  the  hands  of  the  apostles  at 
Jerusalem  ?  Will  he  answer  this  ?  This  is 
like  the  argument  so  often  made  by  infidels, 
that  if  in  the  beginning  the  Devil  had  not 
been  created,  there  would  have  been  no  evil 
whatever  in  the  world  ;  therefore,  the  Lord 

wholly  responsible. 

Do  you  accept  the  theory,  Mr.  Braden? 

xid  can  you  not  see  there  is  no  basis  to 
ur  reasoning?  If  there  are  parties  in  the 

orld  who  shall  take  advantage  of  their 
privileges,  and  stations,  and  the  blessings 
which  Uod  may  have  to  give  to  his  children, 
does  that  argue  that  none  of  the  children 
shall  have  the  blessings? 

But,  if  Mr.  Smith  had  not  believed  in  the 
principles  of  revelation  there  would  have 


been  no  Mormonism.  Oh,  no!  Then  ac- 
cording to  himself  Mormonism  is  the  result 
of  a  belief,  not  a  disbelief,  in  revelation; 
and  Smith  was  no  deceiver,  impostor,  pre- 
tentious fraud,  etc.,  as  he  has  called  him. 
He  was  a  man,  then,  who  acted  from  con-' 
viction  and  taught  what  he  believed.  Will 
you  now  take  back  the  false  accusation* 
you  have  before  made  against  him  ? 

But  permit  me  to  turn  this  profound  (?) 
logic  over  a  moment.  He  will  not  dispute 
that  if  all  the  people  of  the  world  had  be- 
lieved like  the  Campbellites  do,  and  Mr. 
Campbell  did,  that  there  never  would  have 
been  a  revelation.  No,  they  deny  the  prin- 
ciple of  present  revelation.  (They  are  nob 
like  Mr.  Smith.)  But  denying,  they  stand 
in  such  a  relation  and  position  to  God  that 
had  the  men  of  God  in  the  world's  history 
believed  as  Mr.  Campbell  and  Braden  anil 
their  church,  no  revelation  could  ever 
have  been  received,  and  we  should  be  with- 
out Moses  and  the  prophets ;  without  the 
Psalms;  without  the  gospels  and  all  of  the 
inspired  epistles  of  the  apostles;  without 
the  Bible ;  without  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  without  God  and  Christ  in  the 
world.  Aye  !  my  friends,  had  the  prophet* 
of  old,  and  Jesus  and  the  apostles  believed 
as  these  Campbellite  friends  of  ot.rs,  all  to- 
day would  be  darkness  and  gloom,  and 
Christendom  as  the  raging  heathen  who 
has  no  divine  record,  no  communion  with 
the  Father  and  Son,  and  no  gift  ol  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Who  will  desire  to  stand  up  for  a. 
faith  the  effect  of  which  is  t«  ieave  the 
world  in  this  benighted  state?  It  will  not 
do.  The  Pharisees  of  old  cried  out,  "  We 
know  that  God  spoke  to  Moses,  but  as  for 
this  man  (Jesus)  we  know  not  from  whence 
he  is."  The  position  was  one  of  error  and 
darkness,  and  it  finally  led  them  into  de- 
struction and  death.  Jesus'  position  wa» 
that  of  present  revelation:  "Upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;"  "  If  any  man 
will  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doc- 
trine;" "  If  ye  believed  in  Moses  and  the 
prophets  ye  would  believe  in  me,  for  Mose» 
wrote  of  me."  You  must  not  only  believe 
in  revelation  in  the  past,  but  for  the  present, 
for  this  was  to  "guide  into  all  truth  ;"  and 
this  system  of  present  revelation  has  given 
light  and  glory  to  the  world,  and  would 
have  shined  far  brighter  than  it  has  had  it 
not  been  for  the  persistent  teaching  of  the 
evil  one,  telling  the  children,  Ye  cannot 
hear  from  your  "Father  who  art  in  heaven," 
now. 

"The  greatest  curse  upon  the  world," 
Braden  says,  "is  the  belief  in  the  direct 
and  immediate  influenceof  the  Holy  Ghost  " 
That  is  just  the  position  the  ancient  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  occupied  towards  Jesus,  and 
the  apostles,  and  the  martyr  Stephen.  See 
Acts,  6th.  Has  Braden  fairly  represented 
you,  my  Camphellite  friends?  If  so,  I  would 
say,  "Come  out  of  her  and  be  not  partaker 
of  her  sins." 

But,  says  Braden  again,  "Mormons  by 
this  belief  in  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
can  go  into  and  practice  polygamy."  There 
is  where  he  and  the  world  have  beeu  mis- 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


297 


taken  for  years.  Will  he  turn  and  show  me 
«ven  a  pretended  present  revelation  through 
the  poly gamic  church  ?  I  know  the  world 
have  had  it  in  mind  that  the  people  of  Utah 
profess  to  enjoy  present  inspiration  and  the 
gifts  of  prophecy,  tongues,  wisdom  and  in- 
terpretations, etc.,  but  they  have  only  de- 
ceived themselves.  There  is  not  by  the 
Utah  people  even  an  open  claim,  that  I  have 
•ever  heard  of,  to  the  receiving  of  a  revela- 
tion directing  affairs,  ever  coming  to  the 
Utah  church  through  either  Mr.  Young  or 
Mr.  Taylor,  the  only  two  heads.  They  are 
on  the  common  basis  with  my  Campbeliite 
friends  out  there.  "That  these  things  are 
not  necessary  by  them,  for  they  say  we  have 
a  living  priesthood."  It  is  the  same  old 
dodge,  but  placed  upon  a  different  basis. 
What  good  is  the  living  priesthood  when 
the  life-power,  the  manifestation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  taken  away?  No;  they  are 
not  persons  who  are  "  led  by  the  Spirit  of 
God"  out  there,  and  for  this  reason  ''the 
sons  of  God;"  but  they  are  all  "kings  and 
priests"  in  Utah,  except  Governor  Murry. 
They  differ  from  our  Campbeliite  friends  in 
that  they  also  have  an  especial  belief  in 
queens  as  well  as  kings. 

He  again  comes  to  the  front  with  his 
assertions,  and  defies  me  to  show  that  there 
is  more  than  one  baptism  in  the  church. 
He  forgets  that  he  is  in  the  affirmative  on 
this  question  and  that  it  is  his  place  to 
prove  and  to  stop  his  asserting.  I  shall 
not  undertake  to  prove  that  there  is  more 
than  one  baptism  in  his  church,  for  I  am 
satisfied  there  is  not,  nor  never  was.  In- 
deed, I  deny  that  he  has  any  baptism  in 
fact,  in  his  church,  and  have  all  along.  The 
requisites  of  a  valid  baptism  is  not  only  a 
proper  administration  in  water,  but  an 
authorized  officer  to  perform  such  adminis- 
tration. This  I  have  questioned  from  the 
first  as  being  in  his  church,  and  he  has  failed 
to  show  that  they  had ;  therefore  I  must 
conclude  that  there  is  no  baptism  per- 
formed in  his  church  that  God  will  sanc- 
tion or  ratify  by  giving  to  the  candidate 
the  "seal  ot  adoption,"  the  gift  of  his  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  Braden  admits  that  not  one  in 
hia  church  ever  had  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  the  seal  of  adoption  ;  No;  it  would 
have  made  Mormons  of  them,  he  thinks. 
However,  I  have  already  fully  shown,  that 
there  were  two  baptisms  in  the  Apostolic 
church.  "I,  indeed  baptize  you  witl  *"ater, 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me,  is  't^ntier 
than  I,  he  shall  baptize  you  wit'-  're  and 
the  Holy  Ghost."  John,  Math.?  Again, 
"Ye  shall  be  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
not  many  days  hence."  Jesus.  Acts  1 :  5. 
"Born  of  the  water  and  of  the  Spirit." 
Jesus,  John  3:5.  "Repent,  and  be  hap- 
tized,  everyone  of  you,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  [baptism]  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Peter,  Acts.  2:38.  "Then  laid  they  their 
hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Acts,  8:17.  "By  one  spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  bo  bond  or 
free  ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into 
one  spirit."  Paul.  1  C«r.  12:13.  "Faith, 


repentance,  baptisms  laying  on  of  hands, 
resurrect-ion  of  the  dead  and  eternal  judg- 
ment." Heb.  6:1  to  3. 

"He  saves  us  by  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion [baptism  in  water]  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;"  [baptism  of  the  Spirit.] 
For  the  next  verse  says  that  this  renewing 
was  as  follows:  "Which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Savior."  When  Jesus  so  shed  this  forth  on 
Pentecost  day,  it  was  a  baptiBm  of  the 
spirit,  and  just  so  too,  in  every  other 
instance. 

But  notwithstanding  all  of  this,  Braden 
defies  me  to  show  two  baptisms.  I  can  show 
it  readily  enough  in  Jesus'  church,  I  assure 
you.  Then,  in  Eph.  4:5,  it  is  written  :  "One 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  [Complete 
birth,  as  I  have  shown  you  ;  washing  of 
water  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.] 
This  is  also  in  accordance  with  the  teach- 
ing in  the  preceding  verse:  "There  is  one 
body,  and  one  Spirit  even  as  ye  are  called 
in  one  hope  of  your  calling."  What  is  thia 
one  Spirit  for?  Not  for  anything  in  Braden 's 
church,  for  he  admits  they  have  none  by 
denying  all  of  its  office-work.  But  in  Christ's 
church  it  was  for  to  bless  the  believer  by 
clothing  him  upon  with  the  new  man,  Christ 
Jesus,  and  sealing  their  hearts  in  love  to 
him;  hence,  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ."  Jesus,  John,  Peter,  Paul  and  Luke 
were  right  in  their  teaching  then  ;  there  is 
in  the  church  of  God  a  baptism  of  the  water 
and  of  the  Spirit. 

It  seems  hard  for  my  opponent  to  give  up 
the  point  on  the  application  of  the  consti- 
tution argument  to  the  apostles  and  New 
Testament.  He  has  a  new  theory  now. 
The  sovereign  people  he  now  says  made  the 
constitution  through  their  delegates,  and 
so  God  made,  as  the  likeness  would  go,  the 
constitution  of  the  church  by  his  delegates, 
the  apostles.  Let  us  see  how  it  will  work  : 
After  the  delegates  had  framed  the  consti- 
tution themselves,  the  people  doing  noth- 
ing except  sending  them  there,  they  return 
it  to  the  people  for  acceptance  and  ratifica- 
tion. Now,  according  to  this,  in  the  church, 
after  the  apostles  had  got  up  a  constitution 
according  to  their  own  wisdom,  they  send 
it  back  to  the  Lord,  who  made  them  dele- 
gates, for  his  acceptance  and  ratification. 
Is  not  this  the  exact  claim  of  Col.  Ingersoll? 
That  the  Lord  did  not  give  this  law,  but 
that  the  apostles  and  some  others  got  it  up 
themselves?  Why,  Braden  has  by  this  last 
turn  of  his,  made  it  worse  than  before. 
Making  the  people  to  represent  the  Al- 
mighty in  his  suppositious  case,  he  has 
clearly  left  the  word  of  God  without  any 
inspiration  at  all.  Inpreparingthe  Ameri- 
can constitution,  the  people  selected  men 
who  were  wise  enough,  they  thought,  to 
frame  a  constitution  for  them.  Did  then 
the  Lord  select  some  one  to  frame  him  a 
constitution,  as  did  the  people  of  this  gov- 
ernment? Nonsense.  There  is  not  a  half- 
witted person  in  the  state  of  Ohio  but  who 
ou<rhtto  see  farther  than  that. 

When    the   constitution   of  the    United 


298 


THE  B II  ADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


States  was  framed  it  was  done  by  the  wis-  . 
dom  of  the  delegates  chosen  by  the  people. 
The  people  was  the  principal  and  the  dele- 
gates the  servants.  When  done  it  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  principal,  the  people,  for  rati- 
fication, and  after  ratification  and  adoption, 
messengers  and  officers  were  chosen  there- 
under. 

The  work  of  the  apostles  under  the  Christ- 
ian constitution  begins  where  this  delegate 
work  of  forming  a  constitution  ended.  God 
framed,  devised  and  adopted  it,  and  then 
selected  his  officers  under  it,  and  the 
officers  were  first  apostles,  secondarily 
prophets,  etc.  The  same  as  the  people 
after  adopting  the  constitution  placed  in 
the  government  thereunder  first  a  pres- 
ident, etc.  Braden's  suppositious  case  is  in 
no  sense  a  parallel  one,  and  I  am  certain 
you  can  see  that  it  is  not,  my  friends, 
whether  he  can  or  not,  so  I  pass  along. 

Again  he  claims  that  we  have  a  perfected 
constitution  now,  but  that  it  was  not  per- 
fect while  Peter,  Paul  and  John  were  in  the 
church;  but  what  right  has  .he  to  say  so? 
When  they  were  in  the  church  they  had 
more  constitution  than  we  have  now,  there 
are  many  writings  referred  to  in  the  New 
Testament  as  being  in  their  possession  which 
we  have  not,  besides  they  had  much  of  all 
we  do  have.  Why  does  he  persist  in  saying 
then,  that  the  Gospel  law  is  perfect  now 
but  was  not  then?  James  called  it  perfect 
then,  as  I  have  shown?  It  was  perfect  in 
the  Psalmist's  time  in  the  same  way,  and 
there  is  not  a  single  scrap  from  Genesis  to 
Revelations  intimating  that  it  would  ever 
be  perfect  any  other  way,  until  the  time 
when  Jesus  shall  come  in  clouds  of  great 
"glory  and  bring  all  his  saints  with  him, 
taking  vengeance  on  all  them  who  know 
not  God  and  obey  not  the  Gospel."  When 
"we  shall  know  and  see  him  as  lie  is,  for  we 
shall  be  like  him." 

Until  this  time  it  will  he  as  Paul  says  of 
the  Gospel :  "For  therein  is  the  righteous- 
of  God  revealed  from  faith  to  faith,  as  it  is 
written,  the  just  shall  live  by  faith."  Not 
received  in  full,  all  at  once.  It  is  quite  im- 
possi  ble  to  so  dispense  or  receive  the  Gospel, 
— but  revealed  from  faith  to  faith;  and  just 
about  the  time  a  man  thinks  he  has  got  the 
whole  thing  and  there  is  nothing  else  for 
him  to  learn,  then  is  the  time  that  he  is 
under  sin  and  "the  bonds  of  iniquity." 
There  is  something  in  the  Gospel  to  bless 
man  all  the  time  and  enable  him  to  grow  in 
grace  and  the  knoivledge  of  the  truth;  and 
when  he  gets  all  truth  it  will  be  after  he  is 
*ar  ahead  of  where  Paul  was  who  says, 
'Now  I  see  in  part  and  know  in  part, — 
hrough  a  glass,  darkly, — but  then  shall 
I  see  as  I  am  seen  and  know  as  I  am 
known." 

It  is  just  as  was  the  creation  of  the  plants 
and  animals,  which  I  have  before  referred 
to,  the  Lord  created  them  and  established 
the  law  of  life  by  which  they  are  perpetuat- 
ed. He  created  his  church  and  established 
a  law  of  life  by  which  this  living  church  is 
perpetuated,  and  just  as  certain  as  there  is 
found  an  absence  of  this  animal  and  vege- 


table life  where  the  true  conditions  oflifo 
are  not  recognized,  just  so  sure  are  we  to 
find  an  absence  of  the  true  life  and  power 
in  the  church,  and,  per  consequence,  true 
church  where  the  conditions  of  spiritual 
life  are  violated.  Hence,  the  apostle  talking 
of  the  true  church  says :  "We  have  not  come 
to  the  mount  that  might  be  touched  and 
that  burned  with  fire  nor  unto  blacknes* 
and  darkness  and  tempest."  *  *  * 

"Btityeare  come  unto  Mount  Zion,  and 
unto  the  city  of  the  living  God,  the  heaven- 
ly Jerusalem,  and  to  an  innumerable  com- 
pany of  angels.  To  the  general  assembly 
and  church  of  the  first  born,  which  are 
written  in  heaven,  and  to  God,  the  Judge 
of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect.  And  to  Jesss,  the  mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of  sprink- 
ling that  speaketh  better  things  than  that 
of  Abel.'-'  Heb.  12:18-25. 

Paul's  church  was  one  of  light,  and  life, 
and  glory ;  they  had  the  blessings  of  grace 
in  the  heart;  the  gifts  and  life  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  inspiration,  administration  of  an- 
gels, communion  with  the  church  of  the 
first  born  from  the  dead,  and  Jesus  the  me- 
diator of  the  new  covenant,  [the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  writing  the  law  in  the 
heart.] 

Compare  now,  ray  friends,  this  living,  en- 
lightening, glowing  church  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, with  the  dark  cloud  that  is  prefigured 
in  Braderi's  church,  and  judge  for  your- 
selves if  he  has  even  so  much  as  of  grand- 
father's old  gun  left  as  a  resemblance. 
Without  apostles,  prophets,  gifts,  wisdom, 
knowledge,  healings,  tongues,  prophecies, 
living  testimonies,  the  Holy  Ghost  and  all 
of  its  manifold  manifestations  ;  devoid  of 
doctrine,  tongues,  revelations,  psalms  and 
wisdom  ;  without  the  ministration  of  angels 
and  far  from  all  communication  with  the 
chuichofthe  first  born;  without  the  new 
covenant  and  the  placing  of  the  law  in  the 
heart  and  writing  it  in  the  inward  parts  ; 
without  Jesus  the  mediator  of  this  new  cov- 
enant whom  no  man  can  receive  "but  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Truly  it  is  "a  cloud  with- 
out water  carried  about  of  winds  ;  as  a  treo 
whose  fruit  \\ithereth;  without  fruit." 
"Having  men's  persons  in  admiration  be- 
cause of  advantage."  "Those  be  they  who 
separate  themselves,  sensual,  having  not 
the  Spirit."  Jude.  19th  verse.  "But^we," 
says  the  same  apostle,  "beloved,  building 
up  yourselves  on  your  most  holy  faith, 
praying  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  keep  yourselves 
in  the  love  of  God,  looking  for  the  mercy  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  eternal  life." 
Can  you  my  audience  catch  a  glimpse  of  re- 
semblance between  his  and  the  church  of 
the  apostles?  If  there  is  any,  it  is  in  the 
fact  that  they  have  "  a  form  of  godliness  but 
deny  the  power  thereof."  The  work  in  the 
New  Testament  church  was  all  the  time 
under  the  diiection  and  life  giving  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  it,  indeed,  was  the  fash- 
ioner and  builder,  and  let  us  not  deceive 
ourselves  that  we  can  ever  become  "lively 
stones  in  the  building"  of  Christ,  the 
church,  without  the  gifts  and  power  of  the 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


299 


same;  for  this  reason  I  have  shown  that  "a 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  was  given  to 
every  mail  to  profit  withal." 

SUMMARY. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  The  question 
under  discussion  for  the  last  four  evenings 
has  been  with  relation  to  the  claims  of  the 
Disciple  or  Campbellite  church.  There  has 
been  no  consideration  of  the  claims  of  the 
church  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  I  claim  to 
represent,  but  merely  of  canvassing  the 
positions  of  the  body  of  people  of  which  it 
is  affirmed  in  the  question,  conceived  as  I 
judge  and  formulated  by  my  opponent  him- 
self, as  follows,  to  wit: 

"Is  the  church,  of  which,  I,  Clark  Braden, 
am  a  member,  identical  in  faith,  teaching, 
practices,  doctrine,  ordinances  and  organi- 
zation with  the  church  of  Christ  as  left  per- 
fected by  the  apostles." 

1  have  claimed  that  it  is  not.    That  it  is 
not  in  any  sense  of  the  term. 

In  the  presentation  of  my  argument,  I 
showed  you : — 

First,  That  in  the  consideration  of  the 
question  we  must  come  to  an  understand- 
ing as  to  the  proper  way  to  find  out  how 
the  church  was  left  by  the  apostles.  Where 
do  we  have  the  history  of  it?  Do  we  find 
the  history  from  which  we  must  ascertain 
this  condition  in  the  New  Testament?  Or, 
is  it  to  be  had  in  the  writings  of  those 
termed,  "Church  Historians?"  As  he 
refused  to  answer  me  directly  where  this 
history  of  the  church  which  was  left  "per- 
fected by  the  ap  >stles"  as  he  says,  was  to  be 
found,  I  have  taken  the  trouble  to  set  forth 
the  condition  of  the  early  church  as  shown 
in  the  New  Testament  and  also  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  practices  of  the  church  during 
the  second  and  third  centuries. 

Second,  Having  fully  ascertained  the  true 
status  and  condition  of  the  church  as  set 
forth  in  the  New  Testament,  and  also  sub- 
sequent history,  I  took  up  the  faith  of  his 
church  as  set  put  by  himself  and  reflected 
in  its  publications  and  compared  it  with  the 
history  of  the  church  established  by  Jesus 
and  the  apostles  and  the  continued 
practices  of  the  same  as  shown  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries.  What 
has  been  the  result: 

1.  I  showed  that  his  claim  to  having  the 
right  name,  was  a  myth;  for  he  had  no 
right  to  drop  the  name  Jesus  as  shown 
in  Ephesians  third;  or  to  just  call  his 
church  disciples,  or  Christians,  for  neither 
of  these  names  were  ever  recognized  of  God 
as  the  distinguishing  name  of  his  people  in 
any  place  in  the  Bible. 
^  Then  I  proved  to  you  by  ten  citations  Of 
Scripture  that  the  true  and  proper  name  by 
which  the  children  of  our  Heavenly  Father 
is  known  and  recognized  by  him  here,  and 
by  which  they  are  to  be  recognized  by  him 
hereafter  is  that  of  Saints.  Has  he  even 
attempted  to  reply  to  it? 

2  He  claimed  he  was  identical  with  the 
ancient  church  in  faith.    I  took  up  the  faith 
held  by  the  ancient  saints,  hy  which  they 
had  access  toGod  through  his  Spirit.  Showed 
it  was  a  living,  and  active  principle  that 


actuated  the  members  of  the  early  church, 
being  the  power  by  which  they  could  move 
forward  to  mighty  deeds  of  greatness  and 
that  it  was  this  that  they  were  exhorted 
to  contend  for;  and  what  was  his  answer 
to  this:  "Let  Kelley  remove  one  of  these 
Kirtland  lulls."  But  it  was  not  Kelley's 
faith  which  was  on  trial,  it  is  the  faith  of 
Kelley's  Campbellite  opponent.  What 
answer  had  he?  None  besides  this.  Why 
should  he  claim  they  are  identical  in  faith 
therefore?  Jesus  said  of  his  church  mem- 
bers, that  if  you  shall  have  faith,  you  suall 
do  many  wonderful  works,  and  afterwards 
they  did  to  them  Bradeu's  church,  then, 
is  not  identical  in  faith. 

3.  I  showed  that  repentance  in  the  early 
church  consisted  of  not  only  a  sorrowing 
for  sin,  but  if  any  one  had  wronged  an  other 
he  must  restore  the  wrong.    That  simply 
being  sorry  for  a  theft,  robbery  or  evil  and 
injurious  act  was  not  sufficient. 

Braden's  chnrch  has  not  been  shown  to 
believe  in  the  true  repentance  of  the  Bible 
even. 

4.  Baptisms   as    practiced   in   the  early 
church  was  canvassed  as  referred  to   by 
Paul  in  Heb.   6:1  to  4,   where  the  apostle 
enumerates  the  first,  or  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  Braden 
at  once  admitted  that  they  had  no  baptism 
in  their  church  except  in  water,  nor  never 
have  had. 

Why  does  he  claim  that  his  church  is 
identical  in  doctrine  and  practices  with 
that  of  which  the  New  Testament  is  a  his- 
tory, then  ?  In  that,  they  had  the  baptism 
of  the  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  and  Braden 
himself  admits  they  were  baptized  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  Pentecost  and  at  the  house- 
hold of  Cornelius. 

5.  Another  of  the  first,  or  foundation  prin- 
ciples in  the  church  of  which  the  New  Tes- 
tament gives  a  history  was  the  doctrine  of 
"Laying  on  of  hands."    Remember,  it  was 
&  first,  or  foundation  principle  upon  which 
to  build,  and  consequently  recognized  as 
the  right  of  every  believer  to  receive,  as  in 
the  cases  cited  and  practices  established. 
Acts  8:17,  9:17,  19:2  and  4,  where  hands  were 
laid  on  after  baptism  for  confirmation  and 
the  giving  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

My  opponent  admits  they  have  nothing 
of  the  kind  in  his  church.  Why  should  he 
say  they  are  identical  with  the  church  as 
left  by  the  apostles  then  ?  From  the  history 
of  the  practices  of  the  church  in  the  2nd, 
3rd  and  4th  centuries  I  showed  that  this 
practice  of  laying  on  of  hands  was  had  in 
all  instances  where  there  was  a  true  bap- 
tism, by  the  church  long  after  the  year 
98,  and  that  the  Lord  confirmed  it  by  giving 
the  Spirit,  and  he  has  not  even  attempted 
a  reply.  No.  He  don't  accept  any  thing 
of  a  history  outside  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  ought  to  accept  the  practices  as  laid 
down  in  that  then. 

6.  On  the  question  of  the  calling  of  the 
minister    I  showed  conclusively    that  the 
New  Testament    order   was   by    the  Holy 
Spirit  as    God    directed.      His   answer   to 
this  is  that  the  rule  is  now  changed.     If  so 


800 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


why  Is  he  claiming  to  be  identical  in  faith 
and  practice  with  the  Xew  Testament  order 
and  practices?  That  is  the  question.  If 
the  rule  is  changed  why  does  he  not  man- 
fully say  so,  and  then  tell  us  that  his  churrh 
Is  not  idfntiraL  with  the  New  Testament 
church  in  faith,  practices  and  ordinances. 

Why  humbug  his  members  into  the  belief 
that  they  are  like  an  assembly  that  Peter 
or  John  constituted  in  their  time,  when  In 
fact  there  is  hardly  a  show  of  agreement? 
Who  changed  the  order  of  calling  the  minis- 
ter? Has  heanswered  that?  Hashefuund 
a  single  passage  in  the  Bible  going  to  show 
that  God  would  change  his  order  of  calling 
his  ministry?  No  ;  he  knows  he  has  not. 

7.  The  organization  of  the  early  church, 
I  showed,  was  with  apostles,  prophets, 
evangelists,  pastors,  teachers,  helps,  gov- 
ernments and  gifts,  and  that  their  rule  of 
practice  was,  when  one  of  these  places  in 
the  church  was  made  vacant,  to  fill  it  up 
with  a  like  officer  ;  as  Matthias  was  called, 
in  Acts  1:24-25,  Barnabas  and  Saul  after- 
wards to  the  apostleship  and  so  on  when 
vacancies  occurred,  until  they  were  filled 
to  the  number  of  nineteen,  which  I  was 
enabled  to  trace  from  the  record. 

What  was  his  answer  to  this?  Only  that 
this  order  had  been  done  away,  and  a  new 
order  instituted.  Well,  does  that  make  him 
identical  in  practice  and  organization  with 
the  church  the  history  of  which  alone  is 
set  forth  in  the  New  Testament? 

Is  it  not  apparent  by  this  time,  my  friends, 
that  Mr.  Braden  undertook  a  big  job  when 
he  set  out  to  show  that  Mr.  Campbell  was 
a  " restorer  f"  A  restorer  not  only  of  the 
church  but  the  ancient  church  itself? 

I  called  attention  to  the  nine  different 
spiritual  gifts  exercised  by  the  members  in 
the  early  church  as  set  out  in  Jesus'  lan- 
guage in  Mark,  and  the  12th  of  1  Corinthians 
by  Paul,  and  what  does  he  say  to  tha't?  All 
done  away.  But  why  does  he  claim  an 
identity  with  them  if  they  had  all  of  this 
with  them,  and  Braden  has  not  a  single  one 
in  his  church? 

That  wise  reason  :  "Because  that's  done 
away;"  "  It's  not  necessary  now,"  has  de- 
ceived more  people,  my  friends,  on  all  of 
the  principles  of  the  doctrines  of  Jesus 
Christ  than  my  opponent  could  enumerate 
for  an  evening.  What  a  formidable  reason 
that  is  to  hand  out  to  thinking  men  and 
women,  "they  are  done  away."  Nobody 
says  that  God  did  them  away.  That  Jesus 
commanded  that  they  cease.  That  the 
apostles  refusal  to  exercise  these  gifts  and 
stamped  thenrout.  No;  as  long  as  there 
were  any  persons  in  the  world  whom  God 
approved,  they  stood  for  these  things,  and 
it  has  been  left  for  those  who,  as  the  apostle 
said,  "  have  fallen  away,"  not  having  the 
true  faith;  who  have  "heaped  to  them- 
selves teachers  having  itching  ears,"  and 
thus  made  their  own  ministers  to  do  these 
things  away. 

The  '•more  excellent  way"  referred  to  by 
the  apostle  I  have  shown  clearly  to  point  to 
the  way  he  taught:  that  men  should  have, 
and  exercise  these  gifts,  and  so  continue 


until  we  should  all  see  as  we  are  seen  and! 
know  as  we  are  known,  and  not  that  one 
person  should  have  all  the  gifts,  or  that  the- 
church  should  consist  of  just  one  class  of 
officers,  all  apostles  or  all  elders  or  deacons^ 
but  that  all  the  officers  must  be  in  the- 
church  to  have  a  true  body,  as  much  so  as 
that  all  the  members  of  the  body  have  to 
be  intact  so  as  the  man  shall  have  a  perfect 
body,  and  that  a  church  which  has  only 
elders  and  deacons  in  it  can  no  more  be  in 
fact  the  true  church,  the  body  of  Christ,. 
than  a  pair  of  hands  and  a  couple  of  toes- 
can  make  the  full  body  of  a  man. 

The  more  excellent  way,  in  other  words,  I 
showed  was  that  which  Paul  set  forth  in 
the  8th,  9th,  10th,  llth,  12th,  28th,  29lh  and 
30th  verses  of  the  12th  chapter  of  1st  Corin- 
thians, and  the  1st,  21,  39th  and  40th  verses 
of  the  14th  chapter,  and  which  he  said  in 
the  13th  chapter  of  the  same  letter  should 
remain  in  the  true  church  till  that  time 
should  come  when  they  should  "see  as  they 
were  seen  and  know  as  they  were  known." 

9.  They  were  placed  in  the  church  as  I 
have  shown  "for  the  perfecting  of  the  sain  ts,. 
the  work  of  the  ministry,   the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  till  we  all  come  into  the 
unity  of  the  faith  unto  a  perfect  man  unto- 
the  knowledge  of  the  Sou  of  God."    Epru 
4: 12.    But  this  is  just  the  opposite  of  what 
Braden  has  held,  for  he  took  the  position  it 
was  for  the   "perfecting  of  the  law."     Is- 
he  with  the  pattern  again?     No,  certainly. 

10.  The  tenth  difference  I  showed  between 
between  his  church  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  the  principle  of  intolerance   to 
others  who  differed  with  them  religiously. 
Braden  has  not  denied  this  nor  denied  that 
his  "restored  "  members  of  Mr.  Campbell 
used  violent  measures  against  the  Saints 
when  they  could  not  meet  them  in  argu- 
ment.    Neither   has   he   denounced   such 
measures.    No  such  practice  was  ever  en- 
gaged in  by  God's  children,  Jesus  or  the 
apostles.    But  it  was  "whatsoever  ye  would 
that  men  should  do  to  you  do  ye  even  so  to 
them." 

11.  Braden's  church  preaches  gospel  of 
promise,  gospel  of  process,  gospel  in  fact ; 
but  the  gospel  was  all   that  John,  Jesus, 
Peter,  Paul  or  any  of  the  Saints  knew  any- 
thing about,  either  before  or  after  Pente- 
cost. 

12.  Braden's  church  claims  that  Jesus  did 
not  establish   any  church  ;  that  there  was 
none  till  after  Jesus'  death,  and  not  then 
till  Pentecost.    I  have  showed  beyond  cavil 
that  the  church  did  exist  before  Pentecost 
day,  and  was  established  and  organized  by 
Jesus  during  his  ministry. 

13.  His  church  denies  the  gift  or  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all  of  their  followers. 
I  have  shown   that  it  was   promised  to  all 
the  believers  in  the  early  nhurch,  and  the 
apostle  taught,  "For  by  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  in  to  one  body,  whether  we  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  bond  or  free;  and  have 
all   been   made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit." 
His  answer  to  this   was  Paul  meant  "bap- 
tized  by   the  command  of  the  Spirit,"  but 
it   is  evident  Paul  meant  no  such  thing. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


801 


Why  should  he  persist,  then,  in  saying  they 
are  the  "restored"  church,  and  that  their's 
is  the  one  "restored"  gospel  which  Paul 
preached  ? 

1.4  The  church  of  which  Braden  is  amember 
claims  there  is  no  Holy  Spirit  given  to  the 
believer  in  Christ,  except  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  word,  the  letter  of  the  law; 
"Whereas,  The  practice  in  the  early  church 
•was  to  administer  the  Spirit  as  ehed  forth 
by  Jesus  Christ,  not  through  the  medium 
of  the  word,  but  sent  down  from  heaven  on 
the  converts  alter  they  had  believed  and 
obeyed  the  truth.  This  is  exactly  the  re- 
verse oi  the  faith  and  practice  of  Braden's 
church. 


15.  Braden's  church  professes  to  be  built 
upon  the  Bib.e,  and  the  Bible  alone.  I  have 
shown  you  that  God  did  not  build  bis 
church  on  this  but  the  rock  of  present  reve- 
lation, which  his  church  denies  to  its  adher- 
ents, and  therefore  his  church  is  not  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  apostles  and  proph- 
ets, Jesus  Christ  being  the  chief  corner 
stone.  It  takes  present  revelation  and  a 
present  enjoyment  of  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  build  in  this  way  and  it  is 
not  enough  to  simply  believe  apostles  and 
prophets  and  Jesus  once  existed  in  the 
church. 

(Time  called.) 


302 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  OPENING  SPEECH  ON  THIRD  PROPOSITION. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTI,KMKN  : — It  is  with  considerable  pleas- 
ure that  I  again  appear  before  you,  to  in- 
vestigate a  question  touching  directly  upon 
the  taitli  in  the  gospel  of  Christ  as  I  believe 
ij.  The  people  generally  are  as  ignorant  of 
the  actual  faith  and  principles  of  the 
church  I  represent  as  the  ancient  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  were  of  the  faith  and  doctrine 
Jesus  and  Paul  [(reached.  For  this  reason, 
if  there  were  no  others,  I  am  glad  to-night, 
being  assured  in  my  heart  that  when  I  shall 
be  rightly  understood  by  you,  and  the  peo- 
ple whom  I  represent  shall  have  been  truly 
known  by  you,  that  we  shall  find  in  your 
hearts  a  warmer  feeling  than  is  possible  to 
exist  in  the  absence  of  such  knowledge. 

I  delight  also  to  engage  in  a  friendly  in- 
vestigation of  the  facts  underlying  my  faith 
in  the  Redeemer,  because  I  have  so  care- 
fully considered  and  criticized  it,  that  I 
know  that  there  is  nothing  contained  there- 
in, but  that  will  appeal  to  man's  intelligence, 
and  is  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  highest  im- 
pulses, and  worthy  to  be  honored  with  the 
noblest  sentiments  of  the  human  heart. 

"he  question,  the  discussion  of  which  we 
en  er  upon  this  evening,  reads  : 

"Is  the  Re-organized  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  the  church  of 
God  in  fact,  and  accepted  with  him." 

am  well  aware  that  to  begin  with,  my 
friends,  I  have  the  unpopular  side  of  this 
issue;  and  that  even  men  and  women  of 
much  intelligence,  look  upon  a  person  who 
accepts  the  faith  of  the  Saints,  as  being  not 
only  visionary,  but  actually  fanatical.  But 
notwithstanding  this,  lean  truly  say  that 
the  ablest  critics  and  most  profound  reason- 
ers  that  it  has  been  my  lot  to  meet  among 
any  people  I  have  found  among  the  Latter 
Day  Saints.  I  ask  you  then  to  accept,  for 
the  time  of  this  investigation  at  least,  the 
injunction  of  the  wise  man,  and  hear  this 
issue  discussed,  before  pussing  upon  the 
nieritsofit:  "He  that  answereth  a  matter 
before  he  heat  eth  it.  it  is  a  folly  and  a  shame 
unio  him."  Yea,  and  those  who  are  ready 
tn  condemn  a  man,  or  people,  before  they 
give  them  a  fair  and  full  hearing,  are  not 
only  unfit  t<>  1 19. called  children  of  God,  but 
are  in  fact,  btra  citizens  and  evil  doers  in 
the  government  itself.  I  ask  you  then  to 
discharges  y«»ur  minds  of  such  prejudice,  or 
bias,  as  would  otherwise  prevent  you  from 
judging  the  arguments  to  be  p-oduced  in 
this  discussion,  upon  their  merits,  and  as 
free  men  and  women,  think  and  act  for 
yourselves,  and  of  yourselves,  instead  of 
being  led  by  the  mischievous  influences 
•which  may  have  by  reason  of  your  relations 
in  life,  been  thrown  around  you.  It  may 
appear  to  you  that  in  the  very  fact  of  the 
claim  thacthe  church  which  I  represent  is 


thechurch  of  God  and  accepted  with  Him,  it 
is  shown  that  I  have  not  sufficient  charity  for 
the  work  and  feelings  of  others.  Lut,  chink 
of  it!  Is  it  really  a  thing  to  be  condemned. 
or  not  rather  an  affirmation  to  bfe  admired  ? 

Would  you  expect  me  to  belong  to  the 
church  I  do,  and  seek  to  promote  its 
interests,  if  I  did  not  think  it  was  the 
church  of  Ood  in  fact,  and  accepted  with 
him!  I  am  sure  that  upon  a  second 
thought  you  would  not.  Well,  if  I  really 
believe  it.  is  it  wrong  to  tell  you  candidly 
what  my  belief  is?  You  cannot  but  answer 
me  that  it  is  not.  "But,"  says  some  of  my 
friends  of  the  other  churches,  "You  ouyht 
not  to  believe  that  yours  is  the  accepted 
church  of  God."  Let  me  ask,  is  not  that 
what  you  all  believe? 

What  church  member  present  of  what- 
ever name  or  denomination,  who  does  not 
believe  his  church  is  thecharch  of  God,  and 
accepted  with  him?  If  there  is  such  a  one 
I  would  like  to  see  him.  What  does  he 
belong  to  it  for,  if  it  is  not  God's  church? 
Does  he  expect  to  be  saved  by  reason  of 
belonging  to  some  man's  church,  or  does 
he  think  Deity  has  hundreds  of  churches 
on  theearth  all  teaching  adverse  views  and 
principles  and  impelled  by  diverse  motives? 
Such  a  view  degrades  the  character  of  our 
Heavenly  Father.  It  is  a  fact,  my  friends, 
that  he  does  not  approve  of  all  that  takes 
place  in  the  name  of  religion  in  this  .world, 
and  the  sooner  we  admit  this  and  seek  to 
sustain  and  attach  ourselves  to  that  only 
which  we  are  satisfied  our  Heavenly 
Father  does  approve  of  and  accept,  the  bet- 
ter it  will  be  tor  us,  and  the  more  actual 
good  we  will  be  enabled  to  perform  in  the 
world. 

But  it  is  not  your  church  that  is  affirming 
this  evening,  my  friends,  neither  that  is  on 
trial.  It  is  the  one  I  represent.  Is  if  the 
church  of  God  and  accepted  with  Him? 
I  claim  that  it  is,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  this  claim  I  shall  proceed  to  com- 
pare it  with  the  Divine  Code,  the  funda- 
mental law,  contained  in  the  book  called 
the  Bible,  and  ascertain  if  there  is  an  entire 
agreement. 

To  compare  with  this  fundamental  law, 
it  will  be  necessary  that  I  first  set  out  the 
fundamental  principles  of  my  faith  ;  you 
will  want  to  know  whether  they  are  in 
agreement  with  the  law.  To  niHintain  the 
proposition  which  I  affirm,  it  will  be  requi- 
site for  me  to  show  : 

I.  That  the  principles  and  faith  of  the 
church  are  in  harmony  with  the  word  of 
God  Are,  indeed,  thegood seed  of  Christ's 
Kingdom,  which,  when  men  have  sown, 
brin  srs  forth  the  proper  fruit— that  which 
is  acceptable  with  Jesus  Christ:  providing 
it  has  fallen.upou  thegood  ground. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


303 


"When  any  one  heareth  the  word  of  the  kingdom, 
'  and  understandeth  it  not,  then  cometh  the  wicked 
'  one,  and  catcheth  away  that  which  was  sown  in  his 
1  heart.  This  is  he  which  receiveth  seed  by  the  way- 
1  side. 

"  But  he  that  rerelved  seed  into  the  good  groiind  ia 
'he  that  heareth  the  word,  and  understandeth  It; 
'  which  also  beareth  fruit,  and  bringeth  forth,  some 
1  an  hundred  fold,  some  sixty,  some  thirty."  Matt. 
13: 19  and  23. 

This  parable  is  also  plainly  set  forth  by 
the  evangelist  Luke,  8:11  and  15.  Jesus 
says : 

"Now  the  parable  is  this:  The  seed  Is  the  word  of 
"  Mod  "  ''But  that  on  the  good  ground  are  they,  which 
"  In  an  honest  and  good  heart,  having  heard  the  word, 
"  keep  it  and  bring  forth  fruit  with  patience." 

It  is  the  same  thought,  yet  illustrated  in, 
a  different  way.  that  is  found  in  Luke's 
gospel,  6 : 47  and  49 : 

"Whosoever  cometh  to  me,  and  heareth  my  sayings, 
"  and  doetli  them,  I  will  show  you  to  whom  he  is  like." 

"He is  like  a  man  which  built  an  house,  and  digged 
"  deep,  and  laid  the  foundation  on  a  rock." 

This  was  a  sure  way  in  which  to  build ; 
and  so  in  building  in  the  church  of  God, 
the  only  place  where  we  may  hope  to  find 
true  work  and  a  building  that  will  stand 
the  test  of  an  examination  of  the  Master,  is 
that  which  is  built  by  the  word  of  God. 
The  sowing  and  planting  the  good  seed  in 
good  and  honest  hearts.  For  this  reason  it 
is  written  : 

"  Then  said  Jesus  to  those  Jews  which  believed  on 
"  him,  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  my  dis- 
"  ciples  indeed :  And  ye  shall  know  the  truth  and  the 
"  truth  shall  make  you  free."  John  8: 31  and  32. 

After  satisfying  you  as  to  what  this  seed 
(word  of.  God)  of  the  kingdom  is,  I  must 
show : 

2.  That  the  church  which  I  represent  in 
its  work  is  in  fact  sowing  this  good  seed  ; 
distributing   the  word  of  God ;  abiding  in 
God's  word  in  its  system  of  faith  and  doc- 
trine. 

1  shall,  therefore,  now  set  forth  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  our  faith,  together 
with  some  of  the  scripture  citations,  which 
we  claim  to  reflect  and  enjoin  these  princi- 
ples, as  follows: 

PRINCIPLES  OP  FAITH  AND  DOCTRINE. 

1.  We  believe  in  God  the  Eternal  Father,  and  in  his 
Bon  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Matt.  28: 19. 
1  John  1:3.  St.  John  11: 26. 

2  That  men  will  be  punished  for  their  own  sins, 
and  not  for  Adam's  transgression.    Ecc.  12:14.    Matt. 
16 :  27.    1  Cor.  3 : 13.    Rev.  20 : 12-15. 

3.  That  through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  all  men 
may  be  saved  by  obedience  to  the  laws  and  ordinances 
of  the  gospel.    1  Cor.  15:3.    2  Tim.  1:10.    Rom.  8;  1-6. 

4    That  these  ordinances  are : — 

(lot).  Faith  in  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Heb. 
11:6.  Pet.  1:21.  1  Tim.  4:10.  John  3:16,  18,  36. 
Mark  11:  22.  John  14:1. 

(2d).  Repentance.  Matt.  3:2,  8,  11.  Luke  13:3; 
24 : 47.  Kzek.  18 : 30.  Mark  1 : 5,  15.  Acts  2 :  38.  Rom. 
2 '4.  2  Cor.  7:10. 

(3d).  Baptism  by  immersion  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Matt.  3:13-15.  Mark.  1:4,  5.  Luke  3:3.  John, 
8:5.  Acis  2:38,  22;  16;  2:41;  8:12,  27.  38.  Mark 
16:16.  CoL  2:12.  Rom.  6:4,  5.  John  3:23.  Acts 
8 1  38.  39* 

(4th).  Laying  on  of  hands  for  th«  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Deut.  34:9.  John  20:21. 22.  Acts8:17;  19-6. 
1  Tim  4: 14.  Acts  9: 17.  1  Cor.  12:3.  Acts  19: 1-6. 

6.  We  believe  in  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body;  that 
the  dead  in  Christ  will  rise  first,  and  the  rest  of  the 
dead  will  not  live  again  until  the  thousand  years  are 
expired.  Job  19: 25,26.  Dan.  12:2.  1  Cor.  15:42.  1 
•Thess.  4:16.  Rev.  20:6.  Acts  17: 31.  Phil.  3:21.  John 
11:24.  Isa.26:19.  Ps  17:15. 

6.  In  the  doctrine  of  Eternal  Judgment,  which  pro- 
Tides  that  men  shall  be  judged,  rewarded  or  puiished. 


according  to  the  degree  of  good  or  evil  they  shall  have 
done.  Rev.  20:12.  Ecc.  3:17.  Matt  16:27.  2  Cor. 
5 : 10  .  2  Pet.  2 :  4,  13,  17. 

7.  That  a  man  muxt  be  Called  of  God  and  ordained 
by  the  Laying  on  of  Hands  of  those  who  are  in  author- 
ity, to  entitle  him  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  Administer 
in   the  Ordinances  thereof.      Heb.  5 :  1,  5,  6,  8.     Acts. 
1   24,  25 ;  14:23.    Eph.  4:11.    John  15: 16. 

8.  That  the  church  should  have  the  same  kind  of 
organization  that  existed  in  the  primitive  church,  viz: 
Apostles,  Prophets,    Pastors,    Teachers,    Evangelists, 
&c.    1  Cor.  12 :  28.     Matt.  10 : 1.     Acts  6 :  4.     Eph.  4 : 11 ; 
2 :  20.    Titus  1 :  5. 

9.  That  in  the  Bible  is  contained  the  word  of  God  so 
far  as  it  is  translated  correctly,  and  further  that  the 
canon  of  scripture  is  not  full,  but  that  God,  by  His 
Spirit,  will  continue  to  reveal  His  word  to  man  until 
the  end  of  time.     Job  32: 8.      Heb.  13:8.     Pro v.  29:18. 
Amos3:7.     Jer.  23:4;  31:31,  34;    33:6.     Ps.  85:10,11. 
Luke  17 :  26.    Rev.  14 :  6,  7 ;  19 : 10. 

That  the  believers  in  Christ  are  entitled  to  the  pow- 
ers and  sifts  of  the  everlasting  gospel,  viz:  the  gift  of 
faith,  discerning  of  spirits,  prophecy,  revelation,  heal- 
ing, visions,  tongues,  and  the  interpretation  of 
tongues,  wisdom,  charity,  brotherly  love,  &c.  1  Cor. 
12:1-11;14:26.  John  14:  24.  Acts  2:  3.  Matt.  28:19, 
20.  Mark  16 :  16. 

11.  That  marriage  is  ordained  of  God;  and  that  the 
law  of  God  provides  for  but  one  companion  in  wedlock, 
for  either  man  or  woman,  except  in  cases' where  the 
contract  of  marriage  is  broken  by  death  or  transgres- 
sion.       Gen.  2:  18,  21-24;  7  :  1,  7,  13.      Prov.  5  :    15-21. 
Mai.  2 :  14,  15.    Matt.  19  :  4-6.    1  Cor.  7  :  2.    Heb.  13  :  4. 

12.  That  the  doctrines  of  a  plurality  and  a  commun- 
ity of  wives  are  heresies,  and  are  opposed  to  the  law  of 
God.    Gen.  4;  19,  23,  24 ;  7:9;  22  :  2,  in  connection  Gal. 
4th  and  5th  c.    Gen.  21:8-10.    Mai.  2:  14,  15.    Matt.  19- 
3-9. 

13.  That  in  all  matters  of  controversy  upon  the  duty 
of  man  toward  God,  and  in  reference  to  preparation 
and  fitness  for  the  world  to  come,  the  word  of  God 
should  be  decisive,  and  the  end  of  dispute;  and  that 
when  God  directs,  man  should  obey. 

14.  That  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  taught  in  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures,  will,  if  iis  precepts  are 
accepted  and  obeyed,  make  men  and  women  better  in 
the  domestic  circle,  and  better  citizens  of  town,  county 
and  state,  and  consequently  better  fitted  for  the  change 
which  comeih  at  death. 

15.  That  men  should  worship  God  in  "Spirit  and  in 
truth;"   and   that  such  worship  does  not   require   a 
violation  of  the  constitutional  law  of  the  land.    John 
4:  21-24. 

16  We  claim  the  privilege  of  worshiping  Almighty 
God  according  to  the  dictates  of  our  conscience,  allow 
all  men  the  same  privilege,  let  them  worship  how, 
where  or  what  they  may. 

Other  than  these  we  esteem  as  a  sacred 
injunction  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  or  Eucharist ;  anil  under  proper 
circumstances  and  place,  the  washing  of 
feet.  But  I  will  not  catalogue  further  at 
this  time. 

Now,  I  have  presented  to  you  our  system 
of  faith.  It  is  proper,  and  necessary  to  ex- 
amine the  faith  and  doctrine  a  people  re- 
presents, in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they 
are  right  or  wrong.  It  is  the  only  possible 
correct  test.  You  cannot  judge  by  the  sto- 
ries told  about  them,  nor  from  outward  ap- 
pearances ;  but  you  can  tell  whether  they 
speak  that  which  is  found  in  the  word  of 
God,  if  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine 
your  Bibles. 

It  is,  therefore,  an  established  principle 
in  Christ's  kingdom,  that  by  the  word,  a 
man  shall  stand  justified  or  condemned. 

"He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ^ 
he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son." 

This  is  an  absolute  truth,  and  all  the  pow- 
er of  Satan,  and  works  of  evil  men  combined,, 
will  fail  in  the  effort  to  overthrow  it.  The 
salvation  of  an  individual,  from  a  Bible 
standpoint,  rests  upon  the  condition  of 
whether  he  will  accept  the  principles  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  adhere  to  them* 


804 


THE   BRADEN  AND   KEI.T.EY  DEBATE. 


Hence,  Jesus  says,  "For  whosoever  doeth 
the  will  of  God,  thesame  is  my  mother,  my 
Bister  and  my  brother."  This  is  the  stand- 
point from  which  the  church  of  God  is  re- 
presented upon  earth  to-day,  if  represented 
at  all.  Those  who  abide  in,  and  represent 
His  truth,  abide  in  and  represent  Him  ;  and 
are,  therefor*,  His  children,  and  for  that 
reason  Jesus  said,  I  am  not  ashamed  to  call 
you  my  brethren.  Will  my  opponent  then 
enter  upon  an  investigation  of  these  16 
prominent  principles  and  help  you  to  ascer- 
tain if  a  single  one  is  contrary  to  the  verit- 
able doctrine  of  the  Messiah,  as  revealed  in 
the  Bible,  or  whether  in  this  System  of 
Faith,  there  is  lacking,  or  the  absence,  of  a 
single  principle  of  the  Gospel,  taughtand 
enjoined  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles? 

Jesus  in  the  commission  says  :  "Teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
The  promise  is  as  true  now,  as  when  ut- 
tered ;  and  it  is  the  distinctive  mark  by 
which  the  true  minister  may  be  known  to- 
day ;  and  the  apostle,  therefore,  urged  in 
his  time,  "If  any  man  preach  (teach)  any  • 
other  gospel,  let  him  be  accursed."  Gal.  1: 
8-9.  It  is  by  their  teaching  then  that  we 
are  to  judge  of  the  merits  of  the  claimants, 
now  under  trial.  Not  by  some  story  told 
around  the  corners  about  them.  Never  ! 

But  I  shall  not  only  prove  that  we  are  In 
harmony  with  the  principles  and  doctrine 
of  Christ.,  but  will  also  show  : 

3.  That  this  church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints,  was  founded  by  Christ 
himself,  in  accordance  with  the  promises 
made  through  the  prophets.  A  work  fore- 
told by  them  to  be  accomplished  in  the  last 
days,  or  in  the  "dispeiibation.of  the  fullness 
of  times." 

As  bearing  directly  upon  the  work  and 
time  of  reinstating  the  gospel  and  organiza- 
tion of  the  church  your  attention  is  called 
to  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  Chap.  11 :  12,  13 
verses. 

"And  he  shall  set  np  »n  en»1pn  for  tn*  nations,  and 
41  shul!  as>emblr  the  i."'  •.  t««.f  I*  M<  1,  «'"'  gmher  to- 
41  gether  the  dispersed  of  Judab  from  the  four  corner! 
*'of  the  earth. 

•"The  envy  also  of  Rphrafm  shall  depart  and  the 
"  adversaries  of  Judab  sh«ll  be  cm  off:  EphiHim  shall 
"  not  envy  Judah.  and  Judah  shall  not  vex  Ephrxim." 

Here  is  fully  set  forth  the  fact  that  at 
Borne  time  in  the  world's  history  the  God  of 
heaven  should  undertake  to  fulfill  the 
promises  made  to  the  patriarchs  and  Moses 
to  establish  their  posterity  permanently. 
The  time  is  fixed,  too,  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  in  the  year  A.  D.  70;  for  it 
says,  "and  shall  assemble  the  outcasts  of 
Israel,  and  gather  together  the  dispersed  of 
Judah  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth." 
Judah  was  not  dispersed  till  about  the  time 
above  referred  to;  for  although  the  other 
tribes  were  outcasts — driven  from  the  prom- 
ised land  of  Canaan — it  was  said  of  Judah. 
Gen.  49: 10:  v'The  scepter  shall  not  depart 
from  Judah,  nor  a  law-giver  from  between 
his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come;  and  unto  him 
shall  the  gathering  of  the  people  be." 

This  is  full  and  explicit.    Judah  was  not 


to  lose  a  national  existence  until'  Christ 
should  come;  but  after  that  time  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  prophecy  that  they  would, 
for  it  is  declared,  "unto  him  (Christ)  should 
the  gathering  of  the  people  be."  They 
were  to  be  scattered  then  as  prefigured  in 
the  prophecy,  after  the  Shiloh  should  come. 
But  notice,  "unto  him  they  are  to  be  gath- 
ered :  Hence,  he  is  to  set  up  an  ensign" 
(raise  the  eospel  standard)  after  the  disper- 
sion of  Judah,  and  from  that  beginning 
gather  not  only  Judah  but  all  the  outcasts 
of  Israel,  even  though  so  far  scattered  and 
dispersed  as  to  the  "four  corners  of  the 
earth." 

The  same  work  is  pointed  out  2n  Isaiah 
62: 10  and  11: 

"Go  through,  go  through  the  gate«:  prepare  ye  the 
"  way  of  the  people:  fast  up,  cnat  up  tie  hitihway; 
"gather  out  the  siouei;  lift  up  a  standard  for  the 
"  people. 

''Behold,  the  Lord  h«th  proclaimed  unto  the  end  of 
'•  the  world,  Say  ye  to  tne  daughter  of  Zion  Behold, 
"thy  salvation  c«>meth;  behold,  hie  reward  if  with 
"  him,  aud  bis  work  before  him." 

The  prophet  here  sets  forth  the  work  of 
bringing  again  the  people  from  their  dis- 
persion, and  the  preparation  to  be  made  for 
this  work  ;  the  standard  among  other  things 
is  to  be  "lifted  up,"  as  declared  in  the  for- 
mer citation;  and  this  is  just  before  the 
seco.id  coming  of  Jesus,  for  it  says :  "Behold 
thy  salvation  cometh:  behold  his  reward  is 
with  him,  and  his  work  before  him."  Jesua 
when  he  came  before  did  not  restore  the 
Jews — they  were  not  then  dispersed ;  neith- 
er did  he  then  "come  to  reward  every 
man  according  to  his  work."  Here,  how- 
ever, the  propnet  points  to  the  time  when 
he  shall  come  bringing  his  "rticanls"  with 
him. 

Let  us  pass  on  to  the  statement  mad?  by 
the  propiiet  Jeremiah  of  this  same  work. 
Jeremiah  16:16-20.  In  the  16,  17  and  18 
verses  the  prophet  speaks  of  the  restoration 
of  Israel  in  the  time  when  it  is  declared  he 
"will  send  forth  many  fishers  and  they 
shall  fish  them;  and  many  hunters  and 
they  shall  hunt  them  from  every  mountain 
and  from  every  hill  and  out  of  the  holes  of 
the  rocks."  Then,  in  verse  19,  he  says: 

"  O  Lord,  my  strength  and  my  fortress  and  my  refuge 
"  in  the  day  of  affliction,  the  Uentiles  shall  come  unto 
••  thee  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  und  shall  say.  Surely 
"  our  fathers  have  inher  ted  lies,  vauity,  aud  thingi 
"wherein  there  is  no  profit." 

"  Shall  a  man  make  sods  unto  himself,  and  they  are 
"  no  gods?" 

"  Therefore,  behold,  T  will  this  once  cause  them 
•' to  know.  1  will  <-M use  them  to  kn"W  mine  hand  and 
"rnymiglt;  aud  they  shall  know  that  my  uaind  is 
••  The  Lord." 

Here  the  condition  of  society  Is  vividly 
set  forth  and  the  evil  teaching  that  is  to  do 
so  much  mischief  to  the  Gentiles.  Israel, 
it  is  predicted,  shall  be  established, although 
the  false  teachers  among  the  Cien tile  nations 
have  told  the  people  it  would  not  be  done. 
The  Lord  of  all  the  earth  is  to  do  a  work 
and  command  and  authorize  his  servants, 
although  the  people  had  been  taught  that 
they  could  call  their  own  preachers  and  set 
vp  their  own  ministers,  God's  hand  is  to 
be  revealed.  He  is  to  actually  declare  his 
purposes  as  in  the  olden  time,  although  the 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


305 


people  have  been  taught  that  revelation  and 
the  immediate  work  of  God  among  them 
"has  been  done  away."  For  these  things 
the  Gentiles  will  yet  be  surprised,  because 
of  the  great  things  coming  upon  the  earth, 
«nd  they  shall  wake  up  but  to  exclaim 
"Surely  our  fathers  have  inherited  lies, 
vanity  and  things  wherein  there  is  no 
profit'."  That  they  have  been  deceived  and 
"have  set  up  gods  unto  themselves  and  they 
are  no  gods."  Let  me  tell  you,  my  friends, 
there  is  coming  a  time  when  there  is  to  be 
a  change,  and  then  there  will  be  a  weaken- 
ing all  around  among  these  self-constituted 
revivalists. 

The  prophet  further  refers  to  the  work  of 
the  Lord,  ibid.  23  ;  1  to  5  verses : 

"Woe  be  unto  the  pastors  that  destroy  and  scatter 
"  the  sheep  of  my  pasture !  saith  the  Lord." 

"  Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord  against  the  pastors 
"  that  feed  my  people ;  ye  have  scattered  my  flock  and 
*'  driven  them  away  and  have  not  visited  them  ;  behold 
"I  will  visit  upon  you  the  evil  of  your  doings,  saith  the 
"  Lord." 

"  And  I  will  gather  the  remnant  of  my  flock  out  of 
"the  countries  whither  I  have  driven  them;  and  I 
"  will  bring  them  again  to  their  folds  and  they  shall 
"  be  fruitfu'  and  Increase." 

"  And  I  will  set  up  shepherds  over  them  which  shall 
"  fee>1  them,  and  they  shall  fear  no  more  nor  be  dis- 
"  niayed,  neither  shall  they  be  lacking,  saith  the 
"  Lord." 

Thus  it  is  further  shown  that  it  comes 
from  the  unsound  work  of  the  teachers,  that 
the  people  of  the  Lord  are  scattered  and 
divided  in  every  place,  and  there  will  com- 
mence a  work  of  change  in  the  right  direc- 
tion, when  he  shall  begin  to  select,  call  his 
own  shepherds,  teachers,  ministers,  and 
send  them  forth  with  the  true  gospel  stand- 
ard which  he  has  declared  he  will  set  up. 

But  hurrying  on  in  these  prophecies,  I 
cite  you  the  20th  of  Ezekiel,  33  to  37  verses: 

The  same  work  is  here  outlined  and  to  be 
done,  as  before  indicated,  in  the  last  time; 
and  the  manner  of  it  is  clearly  set  forth  in 
verse  35 : 

"And  I  will  bring  you  Into  the  wilderness  of  the 
"  p<  ople,  Fnot  in  a  desert  wilderness  this  time,]  and 
"  there  will  I  plead  with  you  face  to  face." 

"Like  as  I  pleaded  with  your  fathers  in  the  wilder- 
"  ness  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  so  will  I  plead  with  you. 
"Brtith  the  Lord  God." 

There  will  be  a  revealment  of  God's  hand 
then  this  late  in  the  world,  and  revelation 
and  inspiration  are  not  things  of  the  past. 
They  are  certainly  to  be  again  employed  in 
the  work  God  shall  be  concerned  in,  in  the 
last  days,  when  he  shall  set  his  hand  a 
"second  time  to  recover  his  people  from 
every  country." 

Notice  next  in  this  connection  the  testi- 
mony offered  upon  the  question  of  the  final 
change  to  take  place  as  to  the  relative  situ- 
ations of  the  Gentiles  and  Israel,  by  the 
apostle  Paul :  Rom.  11 : 25  and  27. 

"  For  I  would  not.  brethren,  that  ye  should  be  Jgnor- 
"  ant  of  this  mystery,  lest  ye  should  be  wise  In  your 
"own  conceits:  [Paul  is  writing  to  the  Gentile 
"  sninls  and  desires  to  open  their  eyes  to  the  fact  of 
41  some  changes  to  be  made:]  that  blindness,  (or  hard- 
"  ness)  in  part  is  happened  to  Israel,  until  the  fullness 
*  of  th  Gentiles  be  come  in." 

"And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved;  as  It  Is  written 

"  there  shall  come  out  of  Sion  the  Deliverer,  and  shall 

"turn  aw»y  ungodliness  fmm  Jacob:"    "For  this  is 

'  my  covenant  unto  them,  when  I  shall  take  away 

"  their  sins." 

This  Deliverer  was  to  come  after  Paul's 


time,  and  the  restoration  and  revelation 
made  after  that  time.  Who  ?hall  say  then 
that  God  shall  not  reveal  himself  again, 
and  that  his  "hand"  shall  not  be  made 
manifest  as  he  has  declared. 

Open  your  hearts,  my  friends,  to  the 
sublime  tact  that  the  promise  of  revelation 
is  for  our  time,  and  this,  when  God  shall 
set  up  his  church,  "no  more  to  be  thrown 
down  or  left  to  another  people." 

Jesus  in  the  21st  chapter  of  Luke,  speak- 
ing of  this  wonderful  transformation  in  the 
situations  of  the  people  says  : 

"  And  they  shall  fall  by  the  rdge  of  the  sword,  and 
"  shall  be  led  away  captive  into  all  nations ;  and  Jeru- 
"  salcm  shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  uulil 
"  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled." 

Will  my  opponent  say.  that  then  it  shall 
-not  cease  to  be  trodden  down,  and  that  the 
Lord  shall  not  at  that  time  be  found  plead- 
ing in  the  wilderness  of  the  people  for  the 
old  paths,  and  the  removal  of  Israel's  sins? 
But,  says  the  enquirer,  how  shall  this  sin 
be  removed  and  all  of  this  work  be  brought 
about?  This  leads  me  to  consider  another 
feature  entering  into  the  discussion  of  this 
proposition,  showing: 

4.  The  means  used  in  the  accomplishment 
of  the  work  mentioned  in  these  prophecies, 
or  the  nature  of  God's  work. 

It  is  to  be  identical  in  kind  with  the  work 
of  the  first  century.  I  understand  there  is 
to  be  no  change  so  far  as  Deity  is  concerned, 
in  carrying  or>  his  work.  . 

Jesus  says : 

"And  this  go^x>el  of  the  kingdom  shall 
be  preached  in  al»  *he  world  for  a  witness 
unto  all  nations  ;  fc.^4  then  shall  the  end 
come."  Matt.  24:  14 

He  evidently  refers  tv  the  word  "this," 
to  the  kind  of  gospel  hu  will  be,  that  is 
preached,  and  the  end  of  ti\  •  world,  as  the 
time  of  preaching  it;  for  IK  ^.s  answering 
the  following  questions  askeq  him  by  his 
disciples  ;  see  verse  3: 

1.  "Tell  us,  when  shall  these v.Mtigs  be?" 

2.  "  What  shall    be    the    sigu    M    thy 
coming?" 

3.  "And,  [what  shall  be  the  sign]  o.  tiii> 
end  of  the  world?" 

He  uses  the  language  relating  to  "  thu 
gospel  of  the  Kingdom"  in  connection  with 
the  answer  to  the  third  question.  Hence, 
I  conclude,  it  is  not  to  change,  but  in  the 
end  of  time,  be  the  same  old  gospel.  This 
is  as  the  Revelator  viewed  it,  for  he  says : 

"And  I  saw  another  angel  fly  In  the  midst  of  heaven, 
'  having  the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  unto  them 
'  that  dwell  on  the  earth,  and  to  every  nation,  and 
'  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people." 

"  Saying  with  a  loud  voice,  fear  God,  and  give  glory 
'to  Him;  for  the  hour  of  His  judgment  Is  come;  and 
'  worship  Him  that  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the 
'  sea,  and  the  fountains  of  waters." 

There  are  two  prominent  things  set  out 
In  this  language  bearing  upon  the  propo- 
sition : 

1.  That  it  is  the  "everlasting  gospel."    Ik 
is  always  the  same  them; — does  not  change, 
—and  hence,  equal  to   "  This  gospel  of  tho 
Kingdom,"  of  which  Jesus  spoke. 

2.  That  it  is  placed   by    John    aa    being 
committed  to  earth  and  preached    in    th* 


806 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


"hour  of  God' 8  judgment."  The  exact 
time  to  which  Jesus  refers, — "  the  end  of 
the  world.11 

I  will  proceed  to  examine  it  then,  and 
ascertain  if  possible,  what  it  is,  and  what, 
if  anything,  is  connected  with  it  wherever 
it  is  found.  It  is  stated  in  the  record  by 
Matthew  4:  23.: 

"And  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee,  teaching  In  their 
"  Synagogues,  and  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  King- 
"  dom.  and  healing  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all 
"  manner  of  disease  among  the  people." 

It  is  set  forth  in  Luke  4:  18  to  30,  in  the 
same  light: 

"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  hath 
"  ainiointed  me  to  preach  the  go>pel  to  the  poor:  he 
"  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  preach 
"  deliverHiice  to  the  cai  tives.  and  r  covering  of  sight 
"  to  the  bli.  d,  to  set  at  liberty  them  thnt  are  bruised." 

"  To  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord." 

He  at  this  time  says  to  the  people: 

"  Ye  will  surely  say  un  o  me  this  proverb,  Physician, 
"  hC'il  thyself.  Whatsoever  we  have  heard  done  in 
"  Cape- nnnm,  do  also  here  in  thy  country.  And  He 
"said.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  No  prophet  is  accepted 
"  in  his  own  country." 

Jesus  recognized  the  fact  that  of  a  truth 
where  the  gospel  of  his  kingdom  was,  there 
was  power  also;  providing,  the  people  were 
in  a  frame  of  mind  to  receive  it ;  for  he  says 
in  another  place  :  "But  if  I  cast  out  devils 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  come  unto  you."  Matt.  12:28.  The 
power  was,  as  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
one  of  the  necessary  evidences.  Therefore, 
the  answer  was  returned  to  John  the  Bap- 
tist, when  he  sent  to  Jesus  to  know  of  a 
truth  whether  he  was  the  one  that  should 
come,  or  do  we  look  for  another : 

"Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Go  and  show 
"John  again,  those  things  which  ye  do  hear  and  see  : 
"The  blind  receive  Mieir  eight,  and  the  lame  walk, 
"the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  h«ar,  the  dead 
"are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached 
"  unto  them."  Matt.  11 :  3.  4  &  5. 

This  is  a  fair  statement  and  description  of 
the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel,  and 
building  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  and  it 
is  the  example  set  by  Jesus  himself. 
Hence,  we  read  in  Luke  4  : 40. 

"Now  when  the  sun  was  setting,  all  they  that  had 
"any  sick  with  cTvers  diseases,  brought  them  unto 
"him;  mid  ht-  laid  his  hands  on  everyone  of  them, 
•*  aud  healed  them." 


The  publication  of  the  gospel  then,  which 
is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  Christ'* 
kingdom,  is  the  initiatory  means  of  this 
work  of  the  last  days,  and  this  gospel  is  t& 
be  not  merely  in  name,  sound,  or  word,  but 
as  delivered  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles* 
The  gospel  is  properly  described  as  being: 

1.  In  word — God's  truth,  and 

2.  In  power  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Upon  this  Paul  says: 

"  For  our  gospel  came  not  nnto  you  In  word  only, 
but  also  in  power,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost    and   in 
much  assurance;  as  ye  know  what  manner  of  men 
we  were  among  you  for  your  sake."    1  Thess    1:5: 
"And  my  speech  and  my  preaching  was  not  with 
enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstra- 
tion of  the  Spirit  and  power."  I  Cor,  2:4. 
"  For   the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  in  word,  but  im 

11  power."    Ibid,  4 :  20. 
'•  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God  then  th» 

"  Kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you." 

So  declared  by  Jesus,  and  the  converse  of 
the  proposition  is,  that  where  there  is  an 
absence  of  this  manifest  work  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  in  power,  there  is  an  absence  of  the 
church  and  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ. 

I  shall,  then,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  have 
fully  established  my  proposition  by  the 
Bible,  if  I  ana  successful  in  maintaining 
these  points : 

1.  That  these  principles  which  I  have  set 
forth  as  embodying  the  faith  of  the  church 
are  indeed    in   harmony  with   the  word  of 
God,  the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom. 

2.  That  the  church  is  doing  the  work  of 
sowing  this  good  seed. 

3.  That  it  was   founded  in  pursuance  of 
the  statements  made  by  the  prophets. 

4.  That  the  manner  of  work  is  after  the 
pattern  established  by  Jesus,  not  only  by 
the  administration  of  the  letter  that  killeth, 
but  also  "the  Spirit  that  giveth  life." 

"Whosoever  trangresseth  and  abideth 
not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  hath  not  God  ; 
but  he  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  " 

If  we  abide  in  this  doctrine  we  shall  hav* 
both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  that  will 
prove  that  it  is  God's  church,  aud  accented 
with  him. 

(Time  called). 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLER  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S  FIRST  SPEECH  ON  THIRD  PROPOSITION, 


MODERATORS,   LiADIKS   AND 

ORNTLRMKN: — It  is  freely  conceded  that 
Morrnoniam  contains  much  that  is  good. 
80  does  Mohammedanism.  Yet  both  are 
j  in  postures,  one  as  much  as  the  other.  It 
Is  conceded  thatits  organization  has  features 
that  are  identical  with  some  features  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  So-does  a  Masonic  Lodge. 
The  Masonic  Lodge  is  a  human  institution 
that  has  copied  some  of  the  features  of  the 
church.  80  is  Mormonism.  It  is  to  be  ex- 
pected that  Mormonism  should  teach  some 
things  that  are  good,  for  its  religious  utter- 
ances, in  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  other 
pretended  revelations,  plagiarize  large  por- 
tions of  the  Bible.  It  is  to  be  expected  that 
it  should  imitate  the  church  of  Christ,  for  a 
counterfeit  is  always  made  as  much  like  the 
original  as  possible.  We  should  not  accept 
Mormonisra  because  of  the  stolen  portions 
of  the  Bible  in  its  pretended  revelations, 
any  more  than  we  should  take  poison 
because  placed  in  a  dish  of  food.  Mormon- 
ism steals  from  the  Bible  for  the  same  pur- 
pose that  treacherous  enemies  will  assume 
tha  uniform,  flag  and  name  of  reinforcements 
that  the  garrison  is  expecting,  in  order  to 
effect  an  entrance  by  deception  and  capture 
the  citadel.  It  is  a  fraudulent  use  of  the 
word  of  God  to  deceive.  We  do  not  accept 
Mormonism  on  account  of  the  features  of 
the  church  of  Christ  that  it  has  counter- 
feited. The  closer  the  imitation  the  more 
dangerous  the  counterfeit.  The  question  to 
be  settled  is  this :  "Is  the  Mormon  organi- 
zation the  true  church  of  Christ."  It  is  not. 
"Does  Mormonism  utter  some  good  things?" 
The  devil  can  do  that.  Nor  "does  it  have 
somethings  that  the  apostolic  church  had." 
The  counterfeit  has  some  features  of  the 
genuine.  The  question  is,  "Is  it  genuine?" 
To  determine  that  question  we  shall  examine 
the  teachings  of  Mormonism  in  regard  to  the 
eight  great  features  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
as  given  by  Paul  in  Enh.  iv.  I.  One  God. 
II.  One  Lord.  III.  One  Spirit.  IV.  One 
faith.  V.  One  baptism.  VI.  One  hope. 
VII.  One  body.  VIII.  One  name.  By  a 
comparison  of  the  teachings  of  Mormonism 
with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  in  regard 
to  these  great  features  of  the  church  of 
Christ  we  will  expose  its  grossly  unscrip- 
tural  and  anti-Christian  character.  I  shall 
not  be  deterred  from  doing  this  work  by 
any  regard  for  the  feelings  of  the  disciples 
of  Mormonism  or  of  sympathizers  with  it. 
I  shall  do  it  truthfully,  unsparingly  and 
fully.  I  shall  tell  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  without  mercy,  even  if  it  does  anger 
the  Mormon  Devil  who  cannot  be  shamed. 
Let  us  compare  the  teachings  of  the  Bible 
and  Mormojiism  in  regard  to  the  "One  God" 
who  is  the  Father  of  all,  over  all,  in  all  and 
through  all.  The  Bible  teaches  that  there 
le  one  self-existent,  independent,  self-sus- 
UJuing  and  eternal  Spirit,  the  origin  of  all 


derived  being,  of  all  being  except  his  own; 
and  the  cause  of  all  phenomena.  Mormon- 
ism is  a  gross  system  of  idolatry,  a  gross 
compound  of  idolatry  and  materialism.  It 
assumes  the  self-existence  of  matter. 
Smith  did  this  in  his  teachings  years 
before  his  death.  P.  P.  Pratt  published 
his  "Eternal  Duration  and  Regene- 
ration of  Matter,"  years  before  the  death 
of  Smith,  and  it  was  a  standard,  and  the 
universal  teaching  of  Mormonism.  Orson 
Pratt  in  public  discussion  advocated  the 
eternity  and  self-existence  of  matter,  and 
declared  that  God  was  matter,  and  had 
form  organs  of  man,  even  to  those  of  digest- 
ion, evacuation,  and  procreation,  and  that 
he  used  them  as  much  as  man  ana  the  same 
as  man.  Logically  and  consistently  Mor- 
monism denies  the  omnipotence,  omnipres- 
ence, and  omniscience  of  God.  If  matter 
and  God  be  co-existent,  mutually  depend- 
ent on  each  other,  and  mutually  sus- 
tain each  other,  each  must  be  finite  and 
limited  by  theother.  If  matter  be  self-ex- 
istent, independent,  self-sustaining  and 
eternal,  then  God  is  a  product  of  matter, 
and  includes  but  a  part  of  matter  and  its 
energies.  In  either  case  God  can  not  be 
omnipotent,  omnipresent,  omniscient,  and 
infinite  for  in  one  case  he  has  been  eternally 
limited  by  the  eternal  laws  of  matter ;  in 
the  other  he  is  the  creature  of  matter. 
They  hold  that  matter  has  ever  existed  and 
never  was  created,  since  that  would  pre- 
sume the  existence  of  a  creative  spirit,  ante- 
rior to  matter  which  is  impossible,  since 
Spirit  itself  is  matter.  The  theory  of  crea- 
tion advocated  in  standard  Mormon  author- 
ities on  the  topic,  is  this: — "In  eternity  two 
elementary  particles  of  matter  met  in  con- 
sultation and  compared  intelligence.  Then 
these  two  atoms  called  to  their  aid  a  third 
passing  atom  and  the  three  uniting  in  one 
will,  the  three  atoms  became  the  first  power. 
To  the  dignity  of  this  first  power  no  other 
subsequent  power  could  attain,  because  the 
first  power  had  the  priority, and  by  uniting 
more  atoms  together,  it  would  always  have 
the  precedence  and  advantage  of  all  other 
combinations  of  power."  This  is  bald  athe- 
ism. It  is  Ingersoll's  theory  of  the  origin, 
of  all  things  almost  word  for  word.  Hesaya 
in  his  "Gods."  "Let  us  suppose  that  two 
atoms  of  matter  come  together.  We  have 
then  cause,  effect,  order,  and  law."  And 
he  consistently  adds,  "without  God  or  any 
need  of  one."  But  Mormonism  absurdly 
makes  a  God  out  of  these  two  atoms  that 
have  accidently  met.  Out  of  this  first  Com- 
bination, the  First  Power,  the  Head  God 
was  begotten,  not  made,  and  «ther  Gr.ds 
have  sprung  from  him  as  his  children.  Rex 
is  a  cardinal,  universal,  and  eternal,  attri- 
bute and  law  of  all  being,  physical  and 
moral.  Therefore  there  are  Kings  and 
Queens  in  heaven,  and  there  are  Fathers 


8Ub 


THE  BKADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


mirt  Mothers  of  onr  Spirits,  that  were  begot- 
ten by  these  higher  beings,  having  sex,  in 
•  heaven  ;  and  wait  to  become  incarnate,  as 
men  and  women  give  them  opportunity  by 
intercourse  with  each  other.  This  is  the 
basis  of  the  Doctrine  of  Spiritual  Wifery, 
that  Rijjdon  advocated  in  Kirtland  long 
before  Joe  announced  it  as  a  spiritual  rev- 
elation. God  himself  was  married  or  how 
could  he  do  the  work  of  a  father?  All  spir- 
its are  literally  the  Sons  of  God,  who  is  lit- 
eraily  the  father  of  spirits  having  begotten 
all  in  the  ordinary  course  of  generation. 
God  has  had  therefore  nobody  knows  how 
many  wives  and  concubines.  Thisisclear- 
Jy  proved  by  the  words  of  the  psalmist. 
''Kings'  daughters  are  among  thy  honorable 
•women  ;  Upon  thy  right  hand  does  stand 
the  Queen  in  gold  of  Ophir."  The  apostle 
told  the  Hebrews,  "We  have  had  fathers  in 
our  flesh  who  corrected  us  and  we  gave 
them  reverence.  Shall  we  not  much  rather 
be  subject  to  the  father  of  spirits  and  live?" 
"Father  of  spirits"  which  are  in  the  form 
and  shape  of  mortal  beings  proves  that  spir- 
its were  begotten  as  fathers  beget,  and  of 
course  spirits  have  mothers  as  well  as  fath- 
ers. Such  was  the  teaching  of  standard 
Mormon  books  before  the  death  of  Smith. 
Such  is  Mormonism. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  pages  505-6,  we  read: 
Jared's  brother  saw  the  ringer  of  the  Lord 
and  it  was  as  the  finger  of  a  man,  like  unto 
flesh  and  blood,  and  he  said,  "I  saw  the 
finger  of  the  Lord  ;  I  knew  not  that  the 
Lord  had  flesh  and  blood."  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  him,  "Behold  I  am  Jesus  Christ ; 
I  am  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Seest  thou 
that  ye  are  created  after  my  own  image. 
Yea,  even  all  men  were  created  in  the 
beginning  after  my  own  image."  This 
teaches  that  Christ  before  his  incarnation 
had  flesh  and  blood  and  a  body  just  like 
man's  body  and  that  God  has  also.  Then 
he  has  a  human  material  organization  with 
all  its  organs  of  flesh  and  blood  of  eating, 
digestion,  evacuation,  and  procreation.  He 
is  limited  and  finite.  He  is  not  spirit,  as 
Jesus  declares,  for  a  spirit  has  not  flesh  and 
bones.  The  Mormon  God  is  an  idol  a  mere 
man.  Orson  Pratt  declared  in  a  public  dis- 
cussion years  before  the  death  of  Smith, 
and  the  language  was  a  favorite  opinion 
with  Mormons  years  before  Smith's  death 
— we  quote  it  from  a  publication  printed  in 
1843,  "We  worship  a  God  who  has  both 
body  and  parts — who  has  mouth,  eyes  and 
ears,  (and  as  we  have  shown  they  teach 
that  he  has  organs  of  digestion,  evacuation, 
and  procreation,  has  organs  of  sex)  "who 
speaks  when  he  pleases,  and  to  whom  he 
pleases.  "Our  God  is  as  good  at  mechani- 
cal inventions,  architecture,  tailoring, 
smithing,  stone-cutting,  &c.,  as  any  other 
business."  Orson  Pratt,  P.  P.  Pratt,  Tay- 
lor, and  scores  of  Mormon  leaders,  years 
before  Smith's  death  taught  that  God  ate 
drank  and  d  id  all  of  the  acts  that  man  per- 
forms and  has  all  of  man's  organs  The 
"Millennial  Star,"  Vol.  VI,  quotes  Joseph 
Smith  himself  as  saying,  "What  is  God? 
He  is  a  material  organized  intelligence  pos- 


sessing both  body  and  parts.  He  is  in  the 
form  of  man,  and  is  in  fact  of  the  same 
species  ;"  (hence,  according  to  Joe,  he  has 
organs  of  eating,  digesting,  evacuatien,  and 
procreation.)  "He  is  the  model  and  stand- 
ard of  the  perfection  to  which  man  is  des- 
tined to  attain,  he  being  the  great  Father 
and  head  of  the  wholn  family.  This  being- 
cannot  occcupy  two  distinct  places  at  once, 
hence  he  cannot  be  everywhere  present; 
(God's  infinity  omnipotence,  omnipresence 
and  omniscience  positively  denied.  Accord- 
ing to  Joe  he  is  limited  in  form,  in  place,  in 
time  and  in  knowledge.)  "What  are 
angels?"  They  are  intelligences  of  the 
human  species.  Many  of  them  are  the  off- 
spring of  Adam  and  Eve.  Of  men  it  is  said, 
being  Gods  or  Son's  of  God,"  endowed 
with  the  same  powers,  capacities  and  attri- 
butes, that  the  Heavenly  Father  and  Jesus 
Christ  possess.  The  weakest  child  of  God 
that  now  exists  upon  earth  will  possess 
more  dominion,  more  property,  more  sub- 
jects, more  power,  more  glory  than  is  now 
possessed  by  Jesus  Christ  or  his  Father, 
while  at  the  same  time  Jesus  and  his 
Father  will  have  their  dominion  subjects 
and  kingdom  increased  in  proportion." 

Then  you  have  revelation  and  inspiration 
of  Impostor  Joe.  Spiritual  gifts  ought  to 
exist  to  reveal  such  blasphemous  stuff  as 
that.  No  doubt  Joseph  the  Seer,  is  the 
greatest  prophet  of  God,  and  the  Book  of 
Mormon  that  he  gave  to  the  world,  the  acme 
of  revelation  "The  fullness  of  the  Gospel." 
God  is  matter,  he  had  a  beginning.  He  is 
a  creature  of  matter.  He  is  finite,  very 
fiuite,  since  he  can  increase  so  wonderfully. 
He  has  all  ef  the  organs  of  the  human  body, 
sex,  eating,  digestion,  procreation  and 
evacuation.  He  eats,  drinks,  digests,  evac- 
uates, procreates  like  mere  man,  and  very 
properly,  for  he  is  mere  man.  Mormonism 
teaches  that  the  Father  is  not  eternal  in  his 
existence,  or  without  a  beginning,  for  he 
had  a  father  and  a  grand-father,  and  a  line 
of  progenitors,  extending  back  almost  ad- 
infinitum  until  they  reach  the  great  head 
God,  who  was  generated  when  two  atoms 
of  matter  met  and  called  in  a  third  atom, 
and  in  the  process  of  generation  begat  the 
First  Power.  In  the  Times  and  Reasons  of 
Feb.  15th,  1845,  the  leading  editorial 
declares  "Mormonism  embraces  a  plurality 
of  Gods,  as  the  apostle  said  there  are  Gods 
many  and  Lords  many.  We  say  Jesus 
Christ  had  a  father  and  mother  of  his 
spirit,  and  a  father  and  mother  of  his  flesh, 
and  so  have  all  of  his  brothers  and  sisters. 
That  is  not  all.  The  first  line  of  Genesis, 
properly  translated  should  read:  "the 
Head  God  brought  forth  all  of  the  Gods 
with  the  heavens,  and  with  the  earth." 
Schmucker  quotes  similar  language  from 
Joe  Smith  himself,  from  the  King  Follett 
sermon,  and  Joe  adds  "  the  head  -God,  has 
had  any  number  of  offspring  that  he  has 
begotten  by  ordinary  process  of  procrea- 
tion." Who  can  doubt  that  the  best  of 
spiritual  gifts  and  highest  of  inspiration 
exist  in  a  system  that  is  based  on  such  stuff 
as  that,  and  that  they  were  needed  to  give 


TttE  BRA  DEN  AND  KJSLLEY  'DEBATE. 


309 


the  world  such  stuff,  »nd  that  such  stuff  is 
the  last  and  best  revelation  vouchsafed  to 
men. 

We  charge  then  that  Mormonism  as 
taught  by  Joseph  Smith  and  its  leaders, 
chosen  and  approved  of  him,  and  in  works 
that  were  standards  under  Smith's  pro- 
phetic control,  is  a  revolting  system  of 
Paganism.  It  is  a  polytheism  of  the  gross- 
est, character,  a  return  to  the  most  loathe- 
some  idolatry  and  j/aganism.  It  is  bald 
materialism.  Matter  is  its  God,  matter 
prrcreated  its  Head  God.  He  has  pro- 
created other  Gods.  Its  Gods  are  finite, 
very  finite,  mere  id, ,1s.  It  blasphemously 
carries  into  heaven  all  human  organs  and 
actions,  eating,  di/rking,  digestion,  evacu- 
ation, procreation,  and  all  of  the  acts  that 
are  their  function  A.  It  with,  transcendent 
blasphemy,  attempts  to  foist  them  into  the 
being  of  the  fj'Jd  Absolute  Seif-existent 
and  Eternal  Fr/rit,  and  to  make  him  like 
Unto  themselv-//,  with  all  their  organs,  appe- 
tites, passion'  and  sins.  Such  is  Mormon- 
ism  as  taiy/jt  by  its  founders,  and  as 
presented  >:  its  standards. 

We  will  LOW  examine  the  teaching  of 
Mormon i'(»M  in  regard  to  the  one  Lord.  The 
Spirit  of  Christ  was  begotten  in  heaven  by 
the  Fatbir  on  one  of  the  Queens  of  Heaven. 
His  bo'iy  was  begotten  of  one  of  the  ter- 
restrial concubines  of  the  Father,  Mary  of 
Nazareth.  The  Father  descended  and 
wooed  Mary  as  Jupiter  wooed  Latona  or 
Semele,  and  then  consigned  her  to  the  arms 
of  the  complaisant  Joseph.  As  the  result 
of  the  celestial  amours,  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  was  born.  The  amour  of  the  Father 
with  Mary  is  like  the  amour  of  Jupiter  with 
Europa  or  Alcmena,  lo  or  Latona  or  other 
victims  of  supernal  lust.  Jupiter  in  the 
form  of  swan,  bull,  or  shower  of  gold,  out- 
rages purity,  and  the  victim  of  supernal 
lu^t  is  compelled  to  bear  Perseus,  Hercules 
and  Apollo.  The  Father  as  literal  dove 
or  in  some  other  material  form  compels 
Mary. to"  bear  Jesus  The  heathenism  of 
Greece  and  Rome  was  elevating  in  com- 
parison with  Joe  Smith's  beastly,  sensual 
teachings,  in  regard  to  things  celestial  and 
divine.  The  hoary  Jupiter  of  Olympus 
whose  nod  shook  heaven  and  earth,  was  a 
much  more  noble  being  than  Joe  Smith's 
head  God,  and  his  sway  over  the  world 
was  much  more  intelligent  and  divine  than 
the  sway  of  Joe's  head  God,  who  is  so 
finite  that  the  weakest  mortal  will  soon 
eclipse  him.  Such  is  the  teaching  of  Mormon 
ism  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  Divine  Lo- 
gos, the  Divine  Messiah.  Weobject  that  Mor- 
nionism  denies  that  Jesus  was,  through  his 
inspired  apostles,  our  only  Divine  prophet, 
our  only  source  of  revelation,  and  it  adds 
to  his  completed  revelation  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  other 

gretended  revelations,  extending  from  Joe 
mith  down  to  the  vagaries  of  visionaries 
and  fanatics  of  the  present  hour.  It  denies 
that  Jesus  is,  through  the  New  Testament, 
our  sole  king,  and  that  his  commands,  com- 
pleted in  the  New  Testament,  are  the  sole 
constitution  and  law  of  the  church,  and 


adds  the  pretended  revelations  of  Joe 
Smith  and  others  from  Smith  down  to  the 
present  hour.  We  have  examined  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  we  will  examine  others  iu 
their  proper  place. 

Mormonism  errs  in  its  teachings  in  regard 
to  the  one  Holy  Spirit.  In  writings  extant 
before  the  death  of  Smith,  it  is  taught  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  merely  the  concomitant 
will  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  one 
mind  possessing,  actuating  and  harmonizing 
both,  and  which  gives  vitality  and  unity 
.  to  their  thoughts  and  purposes.  The  Holy- 
Spirit  differs  from  the  Father  and  the  Son 
in  being  merely  a  spiritual  attribute,  and 
not  a  person  possessing  body  and  parts, 
which  they  teach  all  persons  must  have, 
and  without  which  there  can  be  no  person- 
ality. As  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  person 
we  cannot  see  how  our  opponent  can  claim 
such  spiritual  powers,  as  he  does.  We 
have  already  sufficiently  exposed  the  fallacy 
of  Mormonism  in  claiming  that  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  now  in  the  Church, 
and  that  it  is  now  enjoyed  by  them.  The 
fallacy  of  their  claims  to  inspiration  and 
revelations.  We  have  sufficiently  exposed 
the  unscriptural  and  character  of  such 
claims.  We  now  submit  a  practical  test. 
We  challenge  and  defy  my  opponent  to 
present  one  instance  of  miracle,  inspiration 
or  revelation,  that  ever  occurred  in  Kirt- 
land,  the  head  centre  of  Mormonism  for 
years,  the  shrine  of  Joe,  Sidney,  and  all  the 
inspired  men  of  Mormonism.  Present  one 
utterance  and  prove  that  it  was  and  must 
have  been  inspired.  Present  one  miracle 
ever  wrought  here.  Stop  the  idiocy  of 
eternally  vociferating  that  j'ou  have  the 
cause,  spiritual  gifts,  inspiration,  miracu- 
lous powers, — that  all  your  officers  had  it 
while  in  Kirtland — that  all  have  it  now — 
that  your  members  had  it  here  —  that 
multitudes  have  it  now — until  you  present 
one  effect,  one  utterance,  that  must  have 
been  a  revelation,  one  miracle,  one  proof  of 
your  claim  to  inspiration  and  miraculous 
power.  It  is  an  insult  to  all  reason  and 
common  sense  for  you  to  vociferate  this  im- 
pudent lying  claim  any  longer.  Give  us 
one  proof  or  be  silent  with  shame. 

The  one  faith — the  one  system  of  teach- 
ing, the  faith  once  delivered  unto  the  Saints. 
To  this  one  faith,  the  word  of  God,  the  Mor- 
mon adds  the  Book  of  Mormon,  the  Book 
of  Doctrines  and  Covenants,  and  the  pre- 
tended revelations  of  Joe  Smith  and  oth- 
ers, published  as  revelations  in  their  publi* 
cations  ;  and  in  their  congregationalaction, 
they  add  the  vagaries  of  visionaries',  who 
profess  to  have  received  revelation.  We 
hear  much  of  the  toleration  and  charity  of 
this  people.  In  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and 
Covenants  we  read,  "Those  who  recfiveth 
it"  (the  Book  of  Mormon)  "in  faith  and 
work  righteousness,  shall  receive  a  crown 
of  spiritual  life;  but  those  who  harden  their 
hearts  in  unbelief  and  reject  it  (the  Book  of 
Msrmon),  it  shall  be  to  their  own  condem- 
nation." Joe  says  to  his  apostles  and  emis- 
saries, pretending  to  speak  for  Christ, 
"verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  they  who 


310 


THE  BF  '< 


AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


believe  not  on  your  word  and  are  not  bap- 
tized by  water  in  my  name  or  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  etc.,  shall  be  d-imned.  And 
this  revelation  unto  you  is  in  force  from  this 
hour  upon  all  the  world."  B  .ok  of  Mormon. 
"He  that  denies  these  thi'/gs  let  him  be 
accursed."  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cove- 
nants. "And  this  condemnation  resteth  on 
the  children  of  Zion  eve/:,  all.  And  they 
shall  remain  under  tholr  condemnation 
until  they  repent  and  \<t, member  the  new 
Covenant,  even  the  E-.'/ok  of  Mormon." 
"That  Joseph  Smith  o;rid  those  to  whom 
these  commandments'  were  given  might 
have  power  to  lay  it,')  foundation  of  this 
church— the  only  tin//  and  living  church 
now  on  earth." 

In  a  public  discassJon  in  1840  a  high  priest 
of  Mormonism  defined  it,  "Mormonism  is 
to  believe  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God" 
(truth),  "a  firm  belief  in  the  Scriptures" 
(truth),  "in  faith,  repentance  and  baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins"  (truth),  "laying 
on  of  hands  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (imposture),  "having  the  church 
organized  according  to  ihe  New  Testament 
pattern"  (truthj  but  Mormonism  has  de- 
parted from  it  m  a  score  of  officers,  ordi- 
nances and  practices),  "and  to  live  by  every 
word  that  proceeds  out  of  the  mouth  of 
God"  (truth,  but  Mormonism  falsely  pre- 
tends that  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  Joe 
Smith's  revelations  and  other  revelations 
proceed  from  the  mouth  of  God  as  much  as 
the  Bible).  "All  who  reject  this  belief 
(Mormonisna)  will  be  damned  if  the  Scrip- 
tures be  true."  All  who  reject  Mormonism 
will  be  damned  if  Mormonism  be  true. 
This  high  priest  coolly  tells  that  all  who 
reject  the  Mormon  idea  of  laying  on  of 
hands  for  the  imparting  of  the  miraculous 
influencoof  theHoly  Spirit,  will  be  damned. 
All  who  do  not  believe  in  a  Church  accord- 
ing to  Mormou  pattern  with  presidents, 
vice-presidents,  councillors,  seers,  revela- 
tory, translators,  patriarch,  priests,  high 
priests,  twelve  apostles,  several  quorums  of 
apostles,  and  so  on  ad  innnitum,  will  be 
damned.  All  who  do  not  accept  the  Book 
of  Mormon  and  all  Mormon  frauds  will  be 
damned. 

Osie  of  the  apostles,  one  of  the  Pratts, 
rears  before  Smith's  death,  thus  defines 
Mormonism  in  one  of  his  books: 

"Some  of  the  leading  characteristics  of  Latter  Day 
Sospel  are  as  follows:  It  declares  that  all  of  the  earth, 
Christian  and  Jew,  heathen  and  pagan,  are  living  in 
cvickedness  and  unbeliet,  and  without  a  knowledge  of 
liod.  It  declares  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  established 
on  the  eurth  in  the  days  of  the  primitive  apostles  has 
been  lou«  perverted  imo  human  institutions,  without 
either  the  form  or  power  of  Godliness,  and  consequently 
are  not  acknowledged  of  God.  It  declares  that  all 
those  calling  themselves  Christians  in  the  nineteenth 
century  are  nothing  less  than  idolaters  living  under  a 
broken  covenant.  It  declares  that  God  has  now  spoken 
from  the  heavens  ai  d  given  a  commission  unto  men  to 
go  forth  and  usher  in  the  fullness  of  the  times  (Mor- 
monism) by  opening  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Mormon  Dis- 
pensation; to  both  Jew  and  Gentile.  It  declares  that  all 
who  will  not  humble  themselves  and  go  forth  and  be 
baptized  for  the  rein  ssion  of  their  sins,  and  have  the 
imposition  of  hands  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
by  those  wh.>m  God  has  called  (Mormon  emissaries), 
will  never  enter  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  be  saved 
with  the  everlasting  salvation.  It  declares  that  all 
who  are  without  prophets  and  apostles,  the  spirit  of 


Inspiration  and  Immediate  revelation  from  God,  to» 
pether  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  will  enable  men  to 
dream  dreams,  see  visionband  prophesy,  sp.  ak  in  un- 
known tongues  and  work  miracles,  are  not  yet  fellow- 
citizens  with  the  Saints,  or  of  the  household  of  God. 
It  declares  that  this  (the  Mormon  Dispensation)  i^  the 
stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain,  without  hands,  spoken 
of  by  Daniel  and  the  prophets,  and  that  it  will  roll  on 
until  every  hostile  power  has  fallen  before  it,  and  it  has 
become  a  great  mountain  and  has  filled  the  whole 
earth." 

Such  is  Mormon  charity  and  catholicity, 
of  which  our  opponent  boasts. 

The  one  baptism.  We  object  to  Mormon- 
ism that  it  teaches  that  there  are  two 
baptisms  in  the  Church,  when  inspiration 
declares  there  is  but  one.  That  it  claims 
the  baptism  in  the  Spirit,  when  the  word 
of  God  teaches  that  the  baptism  in  the 
Spirit  ceased  with  miracles,  and  that  it  was 
administered  by  Christ  but  twice — =wheu 
the  gospel  was  first  proclaimed  to  Israel 
and  to  Gentiles.  It  was  the  power  with 
which  the  kingdom  was  to  be  ushered  in. 
We  object  that  Mormonism  confounds  being 
born  of  the  wafer  and  Spirit,  being  begot- 
ten by  the  Spirit  through  the  word,  and 
being  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit  in  bap- 
tism— with  being  baptized  in  the  Spirit. 
That  it  makes  what  was  miraculous  a  part 
of  conversion,  which  can  be  accomplished 
only  by  moral  power.  We  object  that 
Mormonism  teaches  baptism  of  the  living 
as  proxies  for  the  dead.  The  first  publio 
announcement  of  this  farce,  was  in  a  ser- 
mon by  Joe  Smith  to  a  conference  at  Nau- 
voo,  October  3rd,  1840.  In  April,  1841, 
Rigdon  preached  it  to  a  conference.  It  was 
stated  thus  "The  gospel  has  been,  and  we 
infer,  is  still  preached  to  the  dead,  that  is 
to  disembodied  spirits.  The  departed 
spirit  is  still  in  a  probationary  state,  capable 
of  being  affected  by  a  proclamation  of  the 
gospel.  Christ  offers  salvation  to  the 
departed  on  the  condition  of  faith  in  per- 
son, and  baptism  by  a  living  kinsman  in 
his  behalf."  In  May  1841,  in  a  conference 
held  in  Kirtland,  nearly  all  of  twonty-five 
baptisms,  were  for  the  dead.  In  a  general 
conference  in  October  1841,  at  Nauvoo,  Joe 
Smith  declared  "The  doctrine  presents  in  a 
clear  Mght  the  wisdom  and  mercy  of  God 
in  preparing  an  ordinance  for  the  salvation 
of  the  dead.  Being  baptized  by  proxy, 
their  names  are  recorded  in  heaven,  and 
they  are  judged  according  to  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body.  This  doctrine  was  the 
burden  of  the  scriptures.  Those  saints 
who  neglect  in  on  behalf  of  their  deceased 
relatives,  do  so  at  the  peril  of  their  own 
salvation."  After  this  declaration  Joe 
tells  the  faithful  that  the  Lord  will  allow 
no  more  baptisms  for  the  dead  until  the 
temple  is  completed,  and  lashes  them  like 
Tetzel  with  his  indulgences,  to  pour  in  the 
money  to  build  the  temple,  so  that  they  can 
save  their  dead,  who  are  to  stay  in  hell  till 
that  font  in  the  temple  is  finished.  Will 
anyone  swallow  such  stuff' as  revelation. 

We  would  like  to  hear  from  Bishop  Kel- 
ley  an  answer  to  these  queries :  How  can 
the  departed  know  anything  about  what 
his  living  proxy  has  done?  How  can  the 
living  proxy  know  what  the  departed  has 


TFTE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


811 


done?  What  degree  of  relationship  will 
make  the  baptism  valid?  If  the  departed 
believes,  and  no  living1  person  can  or  will 
be  baptized  for  him,  will  he  continue  in 
hell?  If  the  living  is  baptized  and  the  de- 
parted does  not  believe,  what  good  does 
this  ignorant  farce,  this  blundering  in  igno- 
ram-e.  do  any  one?  We  hope  Bishop  Kelley 
will  clear  up  this  matter. 

We  obje<-t  to  Mormon  teaching  in  respect 
to  the  ''  One  hope."  They  convert  it  into  a 
sensualistic  materialistic  paradise,  like  the 
paradise  of  a  Mohammedan.  The  earth  is 
to  be  changed  into  a  fit  theatre  for  sensual 
enjoyments.  The  Saints  will  be  resurrected 
and  reign  over  Gentiles  for  a  thousand 
years.  Jesus,  as  temporal  ruler,  will  reisrn 
at  Jerusalem.  Then  will  come  a  renovation 
of  the  earth  by  tire,  and  the  Mormons  will 
all  become  Gods.  Smith  declares,  in  the 
King  Follett  sermon,  "You  have  got  to 
learn  to  be  Gods  yourselves,  to  be  kings  and 

Eriests  unto  God,  the  same  as  all  other  Gods 
ave  done,  by  going  trom  one  small  degree 
to  another,  from  grace  to  grace,  from  exalt- 
ation to  exaltation,  until  you  are  able  to  sit 
in  glory  as  doth  those  who  are  enthroned  in 
everlasting  power."  Mormons  teach  that 
men  are  the  offspring  of  God  the  Father, 
and  brothers  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  were 
formerly  intelligent  spirits  in  the  presence 
of  God,  and  were  with  him  before  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world.  Men  are  capable  of  re- 
ceiving intelligence  and  exaltation  in  such 
a  degree  as  to  be  raised  from  the  dead,  with 
a  body  like  that  of  Christ,  and  to  possess 
immortal  flesh  and  bones,  becoming  in  fact 
Gods,  endowed  with  the  same  forms,  attri- 
butes and  capacities  which  God  the  Father 
and  Christ  possess.  The"  Book/  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants  declares  that  "The  Saints 
shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  Christ  and 
shall  be  equal  with  him."  We  can  see  why 
the  devotees  of  this  system  despise  all  oth- 
ers. Gentiles  will  be  the  slaves  of  the 
Saints.  The  Saints  will  become  Gods.  The 
Gentiles  will  not.  Such  t^n^hing  fosters 
spiritual  arrogance  and  pride.  It  is  not  the 


humility  of  Christianity  but  the  pride  of 
the  infidel  philosopher,  the  arrogance  of 
the  Mohammedan  slayer  of  the  unbeliev- 
ers, that  is  inculcated  by  the  hope  of  the 
Mormon. 

We  object  to  Mormon  teaching  in  regard 
to  the  "one  body."  It  has  a  fiction  in  re- 
gard to  a  Melchizedek  priesthood  when  the 
Bible  teaches  that  Christ  was  the  only 
Melchizedek  priest  and  had  no  successor. 
It  has  a  fiction  about  an  Aaronio  priesthood 
and  absurdly  declares  that  all  such  priests 
must  be  "literal"  descendants  of  Aaron. 
What  balderdash.  All  priests  must  bo 
called  as  Aaron  was.  Christ  alone  was  so 
called.  Mormon  priests  blasphemously 
place  themselves  on  an  equality  with  the 
Sou  of  God.  Then  there  are  presidents  and 
vice-presidents,  councellors,  bishops,  elders, 
pastors,  teachers,  seers,  revelators,  patri- 
archs, prophets,  twelve  apostles,  several 
seventies  of  apostles,  quorums,  presiding 
elders,  traveling  elders,  presiding  bu  hops, 
traveling  bishops,  translators,  priests,  high 
priests,  until  not  even  an  inspired  Mormon 
can  tell  all  the  lingo  of  official  additions  to 
the  simple  church  organization  of  the  New 
Testament.  Is  this  army  of  officials  the 
simple  apostolic  Church,  with  its  evangel- 
ists, overseers  and  servants  of  the  church  ! 

The  one  name.  The  Disciples  were  first 
called  Christians  at  Antioch  by  the  apos- 
tles. Mormons  were  first  called  "Latter 
Day  Saints"  by  Rigdon -at  Kirtlaud.  The 
congregations  were  called  ''Churches  of 
God,"  "Churches  of  Christ."  The  Mormon 
organization  is  called  "the  Re-organized 
church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints."  Of  course  it  is  the  true  church  of 
God.  This  modern  monstrosity  adds  to  the 
ordinances  of  thechurch,  lay  ing  on  of  hands 
to  impart  spiritual  gifts,  that  was  confined 
to  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  blessing  of 
children  and  has  patriarchs  as  blessers.  It 
enjoins  baptism  at  eight  years,  whether 
there  is  faith  and  repentance  or  not.  Of 
course  it  is  the  church  ol  Christ. 


812 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  KELLEY'S   SECOND    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATOKS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — Before  taking  up  the  line  of 
affirmative  proofs,  I  shall  notice  a  few  of 
the  assertions  indulged  in  by  the  nega- 
tive. 

I.  That  of  the  witness  of  the  brother  of 
Jared  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  the 
flesh.  Braden  says  that  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon teaches  that  Christ's  physical  body 
existed  away  back  at  that  time.  Why  did 
he  not  read  to  yjou  the  entire  passage,  if  it 
said  anything  bad,  or  not  strictly  correct? 
I  will  read  it: 

"  And  the  veil  was  taken  from  off  the  eyes  of  the 
1  brother  of  Jared  and  he  saw  the  finger  of  the  Lord; 
1  and  it  was  as  the  finger  of  a  man,  like  unto  flesh  and 
'  blood;  and  the  brother  of  Jared  fell  down  before  the 
'  Lord  for  he  was  struck  with  fear.  And  the  Lord 
'  saw  that  the  brother  of  Jared  had  fallen  to  the  earth; 
1  and  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Arise,  why  hast  thou 
'  fal'en  ?  And  he  sa  th  unto  the  Lord,  I  saw  the 

finger  of  the  Lord,  and  I  feared  lest  he  should  smite 
'  me;  for  I  knew  not  that  the  Lord  had  flesh  and 
'  blood.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Because  of  thy 
'  faith  thou  hast  seen  that  I  shall  <ake  upon  me  flesh  and 
'  blood;  and  never  has  man  come  forth  before  me  with 
'  such  exceeding  faith  as  thou  hast;  for  were  it  not  so, 
1  ye  could  not  have  seen  my  finger." 

What  is  there  in  this  entire  passage  that 
any  person  who  believes  in  God  at  all,  can 
object  to?  The  statement  is: 

1 .  That  the  finger  of  the  Lord,  as  revealed 
to  the  brother  of  Jared,  was  like  unto  flesh 
and  blood. 

2.  That  this  was  to  show  him  that  Jesus 
would  fake  npon  him  flesh  and  blood. 

II.  He  objects,  because  he  says  we  believe 
in  a  material  God.  A  personage  composed 
of  matter,  &c.  But  what  is  matter?  If  we 
believe  God  to  be  material  and  composed  of 
matter  it  is  because  we  believe  Spirit  to  be 
material  and  composed  of  matter.  If  he 
means  by  the  term  "matter"  that  of  the 
nature  of  the  substances  with  which  we 
commonly  come  in  contact  here,  then  he 
misrepresents  us.  We  claim  that  the  ele- 
ment of  spirit  itself  is  material,  and  in  this 
sense  God  is  material.  To  believe  in  any- 
thing else,  is  to  believe  in  no  God  at  all.  It 
is  to  take  Braden's  theory  of  religion  that 
the  spitit  of  God  when  given,  has  no  effect 
on  the  individual;  is  not  an  agent,  influ- 
encing men  and  women  to  do  good ;  and 
consequently  there  is  nothing  to  it.  This, 
\ve  claim,  is  anti-Bible  and  anti-Christian. 
So  it  would  be  with  his  view  of  God.  He 
makes  out  God  to  be  a  spirit,  and  then 
makes  out  God  to  be  immaterial — that  is. 
having  no  properties  or  materiality,  and 
consequently  nothing; — and  by  this,  he  is 
/able  to  make  God  out  to  be  nothing,  and 
this  is  in  perfect  accord,  as  I  have  claimed 
from  the  first,  with  thy  whole  tendency  of 
his  arguments;  that  they  were  calculated 
to  cause  men  to  have  less  faith  and  confi- 
dence in  God.  instead  of  strengthening 
them  in  the  belief  of  an  existing  Creator. 
W«»  do  not  accept  the  materiality  idea  of 


God,  as  set  forth  by  Mr.  Pratt,  or  Mr. 
Young,  or  anybody  else  that  claims  that 
God  is  the  same  kind  of  a  creature  as  man. 
That  theory  is  on  the  other  extreme  from 
Braden's  view.  He  has  one  absurd  notion 
in  relation  to  the  tangible  existence  of  God, 
the  people  of  Utah  have  another.  The  only 
difference  between  them  that  lean  discover, 
is,  that  Bradsn's  ideas  upon  this,  (if  they 
can  be  called  ideas),  are  more  absurd  than 
those  of  the  polygamists.  They  do  hold  to 
the  idea  of  God,  although  in  a  misconceived 
materialistic  way ;  while  my  opponent  in 
his  scouting  the  idea  that  spirit  is  material 
and  therefore  composed  of  matter,  makes 
out  beyond  question  that  his  God  is  nothing 
at  all.  John  saw  the  Spirit  when  he  de- 
scended upon  Jesus  ;  it  was  distinctly  visi- 
ble on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  when  David 
was  imbued  with  it,  it  was  perceptibly  felt 
glowing  in  his  heart;  when  the  iSaints  of 
old  were  visited  by  it,  it  was  felt,  seen  and 
heard.  Shall  we  conclude  then  it  is  nothing, 
immaterial — is  un perceptible  to  the  senses, 
occupying  no  space  and  having  no  exten- 
sion, just  because  it  is  of  a  different  quality 
of  matter  to  that  with  which  we  more  fre- 
quently come  in  contact?  No.  There  is  no 
special  form  or  degree  of  substance  required 
for  the  existence  of  a  thing  before  it  can  be 
called  matter.  The  iron  from  the  earth  is 
material,  having  the  properties  termed 
matter.  But  because  it  is  material,  con- 
taining such  properties  undera  certain  form 
shall  we  say  that  the  common  gases,  or  th# 
subtle  electric  fluid,  are  not  also  material 
and  composed  of  matter? 

The  statement  of  God's  word  is :  "God  is 
a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship  him  must 
worship  him  in  Spirit  and  in  truth."  I 
have  shown  you  that  the  Spirit  through 
which  we  may  worship  Him  is  something  ; 
can  be  seen,  felt,  and  heard,  is  perceptible  ; 
shall  I  then  take  the  absurd  view  that  the 
being  worshipped  through  this  Spirit  is  an 
absolute  nothing,  that  cannot  be  seen,  felt, 
heard  or  perceived  ?  Never,  if  I  wish  to  be 
right.  My  opponent  should  remember  that 
all  matter  is  not  the  same,  any  more  than 
that  all  flesh  is  the  same  ;  and  when  he  re- 
fers to  the  Saints'  belief  in  God  as  being 
materialistic,  he  mis-states,  and  misrepre- 
sents them,  unless  he  means  by  this  refer- 
ence to  materiality  of  Deity,  that  God  is  a 
Spirit,  and  that  Spirit  is  composed  of  spirit- 
ual matter,  and  that  it  is  in  that  sense,  they 
believe  that  God  is  material.  He  should 
not  seek  to  misrepresent  our  ideas  of  what 
these  properties  of  matter  are,  in  order  to 
try  to  make  out  that  we  have  an  absurd 
view  of  the  actual  character  and  attributes 
of  Jehovah.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  either 
my  opponent  is  no  philosopher,  or  else  he 
has  not  studied  to  know  what  the  views  of 
my  church  are  upon  this  question.  Christ 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


313 


existed  in  reality  before  he  took  upon  him. 
an  earthly  tabernacle.  And  the  apostle  so 
understood  it. 

"For  as  muoh  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of 
flesh  and  blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of 
the  same." 

'For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels' 
but  he  took  on  him  the  sceil  of  Abraham." 

There  is  then,  I  conclude,  in  fact  a  nature 
belonging  to  man,  a  nature  of  angels  and  a 
nature  of  spiritual  existence  beyond  this,  of 
the  which  is  the  nature  and  existence  of 
Deity  himself.  But  shall  I  conclude  that  the 
existence  of  man  and  angels  is  something, 
but  that  the  existence  of  God  is  of  nothing? 
This  would  be  following  in  the  old  trail  of 
theological  absurdity  that  has  kept  the 
minds  of  the  people  darkened  for  the  last 
thousand  years;  and  from  which  many 
philosophers  have  drawn  their  ideas  and 
thereby  been  led  to  apply  wrong  and  ab- 
surd definitions  to  spirit  and  materiality. 
In  the  translation  of  the  Bible  by  Joseph 
Smith,  the  Seer,  as  contained  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  is  clearly  set  out  the  true 
idea  of  God.  I  will  read  it: 

"And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses  saying,  Behold,  I  reveal  unto 
you  concerning  this  heaven  and  this  earth  ; 
write  the  words  which  I  speak. 

"I  am  the  Beginning  and  the  End;  the 
Almigh  y  God." 

There  is  no  absurd  view  of  God,  or  thought 
making  him  out  a  finite  being  to  be  fairly 
drawn  from  any  standpoint  from  the  pas- 
sage. This  is  from  what  is  termed  the  In- 
spired Translation  of  the  Scriptures  ;  a  work 
which  we  claim  contains  more  of  absolute 
merit  than  any  translation  of  the  Bible  ex- 
tant. We  use  generally,  however,  what  is 
termed  the  King  James'  Version,  because 
that  is  the  one  generally  accepted  by  the 
people,  and  so  far  as  proving  our  faith  ia 
concerned,  we  can  do  that,  we  think,  by 
any  of  them.  Mr.  Braden's  argument  on 
the  materiality  of  God  and  his  quotations 
about  the  head  gods  and  Adam  and  beget- 
ting spirits,  etu.,  reminds  me  of  a  little 
notice  I  saw  in  one  of  the  Pittsburgh  papers 
a  few  days  ago.  In  giving  an  account  of 
this  discussion  it  stated  that  "Mr.  Kelley 
represented  the  Re-organized  church  of  the 
Latter  Day  Saints,  and  Mr.  Brad  en  repres- 
ented the  Brigharnite  or  Polygamous 
church.1'  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  if  the 
reporter  of  that  paper  has  chanced  to  drop 
in  here  again  this  evening  and  heard  Mr. 
Braden's  speech  just  made,  he  will  again 
be  put  down  for  a  Brighamite.  (Applause.) 

Over  at  Wilber,  Nebraska,  I  took  occasion 
to  tell  him  that  Joseph  Smith  never  held 
che  absurd  views  of  God  attributed  to  him 
by  the  Utah  people.  Nor  did  he.  We  do 
not  accept  the  statements  in  the  works 
published  after  his  death,  of  what  some  one 
said  he  said,  to  find  what  he  believed  ;  but 
tut  directly  to  what  he  said  himself.  The 
trouble  with  the  sermon  called  the  King 
Follet  sermon  is,  in  the  fact,  that  it  is  not 
published  as  delivered.  It  was  not  pub- 
lished in  his  lifetime,  was  partially  written 
up  after  its  delivery  by  others,  and  the  full 
sermon  never  published  anywhere,  at  any 


time,  and  shall  you  say  we  shall  accept  this 
as  his  views  with  reference  to  God  when  it 
contradicts  that  which  we  know  he  wrote 
himself,  and  when  many  who  heard  tne 
discourse  attributed  to  him  tell  us  it  reads 
entirely  different  to  what  it  was  as 
delivered.  The  trouble  is  in  that  publica- 
tion that  it  does  not  contain  what  he  said. 
But  if  it  did  and  was  then  contrary  to  what 
is  in  the  inspired  works  of  the  church,  we 
would  be  bound  to  reject  it  and  hold  to  the 
idea  of  God  as  reflected  in  the  Bible  and  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Revelations  to  the 
church  which  are  in  harmony  necessarily 
with  these  books.  Is  this  the  best  BradeD 
can  do  for  an  ohjection? 

The  religion  of  Joseph  Smith  was,  and  ig> 
as  I  set  it  forth  in  my  opening  speech  upon 
this  question.  This  was  set  forth  by  an 
endorsement  under  his  own  hand  in  1844, 
to  Hon.  John  Wentworth,  then  editor  of 
the  Chicago  Democrat;  and  on  the  6th  of 
June,  1844,  only  22  days  prior  to  his  death 
in  a  letter  to  an  English  publisher,  thank- 
ing him  for  setting  forth  the  faith  as  it  was, 
for  he  had  found  that  almost  universally 
those  who  had  referred  to  his  religion  had 
done  so  only  that  they  might  misrepresent 
and  bemean  him. 

I  have  set  forth  the  faith  which  the 
church  accepts  to  which  I  belong.  My 
opponent,  notwithstanding  this,  has  occu- 
pied the  greater  part  of  his  time  in  pre- 
tending to  tell  you  what  I  believe.  The 
greater  part,  too,  of  what  he  has  stated,  is 
wholly  false  and  slanderous,  copied  from 
works  in  part  which  were  written  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  the  faith  of  the 
saints  instead  of  placing  it  fairly  before  the 
public.  A  man  who  is  so  ignorantor  preju- 
diced as  not  to  see  that  I  am  the  proper  one 
to  say  what  our  faith  is,  in  this  discussion, 
is  certainly  in  a  forlorn  state. 

Nothing  can  be  more  ridiculous  than  that 
upon  a  question  touching  the  validity  of 
my  own  faith  that  my  opponent  can  be  per- 
mitted to  set  up  anything  he  pleases  and 
say  it  is  that,  and  undertake  to  overturn 
that,  instead  of  my  argument  and  positions 
set  forth  by  myself. 

Does  he  propose  in  the  discussion  of  this 
question  to  set  up  a  man  of  straw  and  attack 
that  all  the  time,  as  he  did  in  the  first 
proposition?  And  expect  you  to  know  no 
better  than  to  accept  such  a  course  as  argu- 
ment applicable  to  the  issue  ?  I  expect  that 
you  are  a  class  of  people  who  are  not  so 
overly  greedy  for  anything  to  beat  the 
11  Mormon"  with,  that  such  a  marshaling 
of  insinuations,  stories  and  wicked  asper- 
sions will  at  all  satisfy  you. 

I  will  state  tomy  opponent  right  here,  once 
for  all,  that  so  far  as  the  faith  of  the  Re- 
organized Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints  is  concerned,  as  compared  to  the 
faith  of  the  followers  of  Brigham  Young, 
or  the  people  who  are  usually  termed  po- 
lygamists,  I  claim  that  it  differs  more 
wulc.ly  from  that  people,  than  does  the 
faith  of  the  Disciple  or  Campbellitechurch. 
And  rememioer  I  am  willing  to  affirm  the 
proposition  from  this  platform,  that  we 


314 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


differ  more  widely  from  the  doctrines  of 
the  polygamous  church  than  does  the 
church  of  Mr.  Braden,  and  am  prepared  to 
enter  upon  a  test  of  that  question  at  the 
close  of  the  present.  I  hope  that  he  will 
either  accept  this  challenge  or  quit  trying 
to  confound  our  views  and  faith  with  that 
faction  of  the  early  church  that  went  west 
and  went  into  all  manner  of  evil. 
Besides  this,  I  invite  him  to  take  up  the 

Solygarnous  sentiment  and  affirm  that 
oseph  Smith  was  in  any  sense  the  author 
of  the  purported  polygamous  revelation,  or 
that  he  ever  had  more  than  one  wife.  I 
will  deny  either,  or  both,  and  Braden  can 
have  time  to  tell  all  he  professes  to  know 
upon  this  question,  and  he  need  not  then 
run  off  on  side  issues  during  the  discussion 
of  the  question  now  before  us.  I  am  here 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  my  opponent  an 
opportunity  to  tell  all  he  knows  (and  find 
he  is  telling  a  great  deal  more),  and  shall 
not  close  down  the  debate  until  he  has  all 
the  time  he  wants,  only  let  the  discussion 
be  orderly. 

III. t Let  me  ask:  Was  Joseph  Smith  di- 
rectly responsible  for  everything  that  took 
place  in  the  church  prior  to  his  death  even? 
Such  a  position  would  destroy  the  work, 
example  and  character  of  Peter,  James  and 
John,  and  in  fact  all  of  the  apostles.  We 
cannot  hold  men  responsible  for  crimes  or 
actions  of  others  unless  they  are  personally 
connected  with  them  and  approve  of  such. 
The  best  men  that  ever  lived  have  been 
oeset  with  those  who  were  bent  on  evil.  It 
is  such  that  Satan  seeks  to  surround  with 
evil  designers  that  he  may  overthrow  them. 
That  bad  men  got  into  the  church  during 
the  life  time  of  Joseph  Smith  is  no  discredit 
to  his  religion  or  his  church  government. 
If  his  was  the  church  of  God,  it  could  not 
have  happened  otherwise.  Jesus  says: 
"The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  anet, 
that  was  c.ast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of 
every  kind." 

IV.  We  do  not  pretend  to  claim  that 
everything  Joseph  Smith  did  in  his  lifetime 
was  just  right,  nor  did  he  ever  so  claim  for 
himself.  Far  from  it.  But  the  question 
under  discussion  is  not  how  much  bad  he 
did,  or  how  little  he  did  that  was  bad.  The 
question  is  as  to  the  accepted  faith  of  the 
church.  What  is  that?  Is  it  good  or 
bad? 

Do  not  deceive  yourselves  by  imagining 
that  the  Saints  are  expected  to  take  every- 
thing that  Mr.  Smith  or  any  other  man  said 
as  law  or  gospel.  His  own  revelations  teach 
the  reverse  of  this,  and  that  even  the  peo- 
ple are  not  expected  to  receive  anything  as 
true  that  should  come  claiming  to  bea  reve- 
lation even,  until  they  shall  have  first  ex- 
amined and  ascertained  for  themselves  as 
to  the  evidences  in  favor  of  its  authenticity. 
There  is  no  more  independent  people  under 
the  sun,  so  far  as  action  and  thought  is  con- 
cerned, than  those  whom  I  represent  here. 
Those  of  you  who  attended  upon  the  ses- 
«ionof  our  General  Conference  here  in  Kirt- 
land  know  this.  Our  men  and  women  think 
and  act  in  accordance  with  their  respective 


judgments  more  independently  than  any 
other  body  of  people  I  have  ever  seen  con- 
vened. They  are  taught  to  do  this.  That 
they  must  render  an  account  to  the  Master, 
the  head  of  the  church,  for  their  own  acts 
and  that  no  one  can  act  as  proxy  or  answer 
for  them. 

So  much  as  to  the  character  and  manner 
of  thought  of  our  people. 

V.  Again,  he  takes  up  the  question  of 
baptism,  and  says  that  we  differ  from  the 
Bible  because  we  believe  in  two  baptisms 
instead  of  one.  Oh,  no!  We  don't  differ 
from  the  Bible  in  that,  only  from  the  Camp- 
bellite  church.  He  is  evidently  comparing 
my  views  now  with  those  of  his  church. 
Of  course  he  must  expect  that  we  shall 
differ  from  them,  because  they  are  not  with 
the  Bible,  as  I  was  enabled  to  show  fully  in 
the  former  proposition. 

The  Bible  teaches,  in  the  language  of 
John:  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water, 
but  there  cometh  one  after  me  who  is  might- 
ier than  I ;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  And  yet  only  one  baptism, 
Braden  says.  Jesus  said,  "Born  of  the 
water  and  of  the  Spirit ;"  but  Braden  says, 
only  one  baptism.  Paul  says  in  the  Hebrew 
letter  "  baptisms,"  in  the  plural. 

Mr.  Braden  :     Paul  says  one  baptism. 

Mr.  Kelley:  He  not  only  says  one,  but 
one  more — "baptisms."  Heb.  6:2.-  "Wash- 
ing of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Titus  3:5.  "For  as  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ 
have  put  on  Christ."  Gal.  3:27.  Baptized 
with  water  and  the  Spirit,  the  same  as  Je*ua 
instructed  upon  this  question.  And  he 
says:  "For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body."  1  Cor.  12:13.  But 
Braden  wants  to  fix  this  up  by  saying: 
"By  cbrnmand  of  the  Spirit  we  are  bap- 
tized ;"  and  over  in  John,  3:5,  he  wants  to 
change  that  so  it  will  read  something  else 
instead  of  Spirit.  He  don't  dare  take  the 
position  that  the  term  "  born  of  the  water" 
don't  mean  baptized  in  that  element,  so  he 
is  fastened  on  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  as 
meaning  baptized  of  the  Spirit.  All  the 
shuffling  in  creation  cannot  get  around  it. 
There  is  not  a  passage  to  be  found  anywhere 
in  the  Bible  saying  there  is  only  one  bap- 
tism and  that  is  in  water.  In  Eph.4:5  I 
showed  clearly  that  it  did  not  exclude  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  in  my  argument  on 
the  second  pnoposition  discussed.  I  am 
willing  that  my  argument  upon  that  shall 
be  put  to  the  test. 

The  difference  between  us  touching  the 
prophecy  of  Ezekiel,  20:33-36,  is  in  this: 
He  says  the  Lord  will  never  have  anything 
more  to  do  with  the  people,  towards  reveal- 
ing Himself  to  them.  That  all  inspiration 
and  Divine  communications  were  confined 
to  the  first  century.  The  prophecy  in 
Ezekiel  Is  yet  to  take  place,  and  it  says  the 
Lord  will  plead  with  them  "face  to  face, 
like  as  he  plead  with  Israel  in  the  wilder- 
ness." He  plead  with  Israel  in  the  wild- 
erness, by  revelation,  and  so  he  must  again, 
or  the  prophecy  is  false  ;  the  text  is  strictly 
applicable  then.  Paul  places  it,  when  the 


THE  ERADEN  AND  IvELLEY  DEBATE. 


315 


11  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  he  come  !n,"  the 
fullness  of  the  Jews  had  just  cuiue  in, 
when  Paul  uttered  the  language. 

Here,  I  leave  his  objections  for  the  pres- 
ent, and  take  up  the 

MAIN   ARGUMENT   UPON  TttE  QUESTION. 

In  the  first  century,  the  evidences  of  the 
decay  and  dis-establishment  of  the  church 
was  in  the  turning  away  from  the  truth, 
and  cessation  of  the  gifts  of  the  gospel. 
\Vill  it  not  follow  then  that  if  the  church  is 
to  be  re-established,  that  the  first  evidences 
of  that  work,  will  be  in  the  fact  of  a  return- 
ing and  adherence  to  that  same  truth,  and 
the  restoration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
Spiritual  power.  Herein  lies  the  distinctive 
difference  between  the  church  of  Christ, 
and  churches  of  the  world  in  any  age. 
Jesus  says:  "Not  every  one  that  saith, 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  nay 
Father  who  is  in  heaven." 

We  cannot  do  as  we  choose,  or  select  the 
way  we  will  walk,  outside  of  the  command- 
ments of  God,  and  still  keep  withiu  the 
promises.  "In  vain  (says  Jesus),  do  you 
worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men."  True  worship 
cannot  be  had  in  this  way.  For  we  are 
taught  better:  "They  that  worship  the 
Father,  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth."  There  ought  not  to  be  any  contro- 
versy about  this,  among  professing  Chris- 
tians, but  all  of  you  know  there  is,  and  a 
wide  one  too;  that  the  multitude  of 
worshippers  to-day,  pretend  that  it  don't 
make  any  ditference  what  you  believe,  so 
you  are  honest.  Thia  was  one  of  the  false 
seeds  which  was  sown,  that  tended  to  first 
corrupt  the  faith  of  the  early  saints — and 
turn  them  from  the  truth.  Hence,  the  fall- 
Ing  away  from  the  faith  came. 

Jesus  predicts  the  event :  "  And  because 
Iniquity  shall  abound,  the  love  of  many 
shall  wax  cold."  Matt.£4:12.  Theapostle 
Paul  in  referring  to  this,  says:  "For  the 
mystery  of  iniquity  doth  already  work." 
2  Thess.  2 : 7.  Again,  verse  3 :  "Let  no  man 
deceive  you  by  any  means:  for  that  day 
shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling 
amtiy  rirst,  and  that  man  of  sin,  be  revealed 
tlieson  of  perdition." 

This  falling  away,  was  to  be  from  the 
ffi'/h,  the  truth,  and  the  spiritual  light  and 
power ;  not  simply  going  out  of  the  church. 
Bitch  an  event  as  merely  going  out  of  the 
church,  would  have  no  more  alarmed  Paul, 
thnn  those  to  whom  he  refers  upon  another 
or-c.-ision,  when  he  says:  ''They  went  out 
from  us,  because  they  were  not  of  us."  It 
I'  the  waxing  cold  in  their  love  for  the 
truth,  that,  was  the  troublesome  fact  before 
ti  •«•  mind  of  thefSavior,  and  also  the  apostles. 

Paul  addressing  the  elders  who  were 
cal'ed  together  by  him,  says  : 

"Take  heed  therefore  unto  yourselves, 
and  1,0  all  the  flock,  over  which  the  Holy 
(•host  has  made  you  overseers,  to  feed  the 
church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  own  blood." 

I  Jinow  this,  that  after  my  depart- 


ing shall  grievous  wolves  enter  in  among 
you,  not  sparing  the  flock."  Acts  20:  28,  29. 

The  full  thought  here  is  plainly  brought 
out:  "Speaking  perverse  things," — per- 
verting the  ways  of  the  Lord,  and  thereby 
turning  men  and  women  from  the  truth. 
As  expressed  in  his  letter  to  the  saints  of 
Galatia,  1:  7.  "There  he  some  that  trouble 
you,  and  would  pervert  the  gospel  of  Chris't." 
Again  in  his  charge  to  Timothy  this  danger 
of  leaving  the  truth  and  turning  to  other 
things,  he  is  especially  warned  against 
1  Tim.  4:  1: 

"Now  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  thai 
In  the  latter  times  some  shall  depart  from 
the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits, 
and  doctrines  of  devils." 

The  manner  of  the  falling  away  can  no 
longer  be  in  doubt  after  this  charge, — they 
are  to  "depart  from  the  faith',  "  Not  only 
this — but  turn  toother  doctrines  than  those 
taught  by  the  Savior.  Paul  in  the  begin- 
ning of  this  letter,  1:  3,  says  to  Timothy  : 

"1  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when  I 
went  into  Macedonia,  that  thon  mightt'st  charge  some 
that  they  teach  no  oth.  r  doctrine." 

In  his  second  letter  to  Timothy  4:  2,  3,  4, 
it  is  written : 

"Preach  the  word;  be  Instant  In  season  and  out  of 
Reason  ;  reprove,  rebuke,  exhort  with  all  long  suffer- 
ing and  doctrine.  For  the  time  will  come  when  they 
will  not  endure  sound  doctrine;  but  after  their  own 
lusts  shall  they  heap  to  themselves  teachers,  havin? 
itching  ears;  And  they  shall  tnrn  away  their  ears  from 
the  truth,  and  shall  be  turned  unto  fables." 

Who  shall  demand  more  positive  proof 
than  this  upon  this  question  ?  This  shows: 

1.  That  there  would  come  a  time  of  great 
apostasy. 

2.  That  it  would  consist  In  the  fact  of  a 
departure  from  sound  doctrine  and  having 
a  delight  in  the  fables,  concocted  schemes, 
and  inventions  of  men. 

8.  That  these  fables  would  be  fed  to  tho 
people  by  the  very  men  they  should  select 
of  themselves  to  do  such  work — preachers, 
"teachers,"  made  in  numbers,  or  "heaps," 
at  the  instance  of  the  people  or  congrega- 
tion. The  fulfillment  is  as  perfect  and 
complete  in  the  state,  work  and  condition 
of  what  is  termed  "popular  religion,"  in 
our  own.  times  as  though  the  apostle  were 
present  to  describe  it. 

No  wonder  with  this  vivid  picture  of 
apostasy  from  the  faith  before  the  mind  of 
the  gifted  apostle  he  should  again  charge 
his  co-laborer  : — "Take  heed  unto  thyself, 
and  unto  the  doctrine ;  continue  in  them; 
for  in  doing  this  thou  shalt  both  save  thy- 
self and  them  that  hear  thee." 

Whatever  others  should  do,  Paul  desired 
that  the  devoted  Timothy  should  not  lose 
sight  of  the  sound  doctrine  which  Christ 
bad  taught,  and  be  buried  neath  the  clamor 
of  those  who  denired  simply  to  pursue  those 
things  that  were  pleasing  to  their  owa 
hearts. 

As  he  charged  Titus,  he  wanted  him  to 
continue: 

"If  "M  in c-  fast  the  faithful  word  as  he  hat  been  tausht. 
that  he'niay  be  able  by  sound  doctrine  both  to  exhort 
ami  to  convince  the  gainsayers." 

The  apostle  Peter  has  added  his  testimony 
upon  this  with  the  many  others  ;  hs  says  : 
*'£ut  there  were  falao  prophet!  also  among  the  peo- 


816 


THE  tffcADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


pic,  even  as  there  ahull  be  falie  teachem  among  yon, 
who  privily  slml  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even 
denying  the  Lord  thit  bought  them,  and  bring  upon 
themselves  swift  destruction." 

"And  many  shall  follow  their  pernicious  ways,  by 
reason  of  whom  the  way  of  truth  shall  be  evil  spoken 
«/." 

My  opponent  seems  to  think  it  a  terrible 
thing  because  that  the  Latter  Day  Saints 
and  their  faith  are  spoken  against  so 
much;  and  is  willing  to  gather  up  and 
peddle  out  all  of  these  false  tales  for  sound 
logic  on  his  side.  The  apostle  Peter,  tells 
the  people,  however,  that  the  truth  should 
be  spoken  against,  in  this  same  way,  and 
this  shows  again  that  Mr.  Braden  has  fol- 
lowed a  course,  all  through  this  discussion 
that  has  ever  been  taken,  and  likely  to  be 
again,  by  those  who  fight  against  Jehovah 
and  his  work,  instead  of  for  him. 

If  any  of  his  friends  console  themselves 
In  the  narration  of  these  stories  and  tales 
against  the  Saints,  they  are  welcome  to  the 
the  comfort  for  me,  because  I  know  it  will 
last  at  best  but  for  a  little  time. 

But  I  return  to  the  apostacy.  It  is  clear 
from  these  evidences  that  the  church  in  the 
first  century  began  to  depart  from  the  faith 
and  that  in  this,  there  began  that  general 
work  of  sowing  the  seeds  of  evil  (tares) 
instead  of  the  good  seed,  the  word  of  the 
kingdom,  (and  a  receding  from  the  spiritual 
powers  consequently),  which  eventuated 
in  the  complete  change  of  the  established 
order  of  Jesus.  The  church,  as  in  the  figure 
was  carried  into  the  wilderness  and  the 
prophecy  of  Jesus  fulfilled  when  he  said: 
•'From  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence, 
and  the  violent  take  it  by  force."  Matt.  11:12. 

And  do  not  lose  sight  of  the  thought  that 
the  evil  consisted  in  the  planting  of  differ- 
ent principles  and  faith  of  church  organiza- 
tion and  the  working  of  the  ministry,  from 
that  planted  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles. 
After  the  apostles  had  fallen  asleep,  this 
evil  seed  or  doctrine  was  sown,  differing  as 
it  did  from  the  good  and  afterwards  we 
find  that  its  fruit  was  different.  Hence 
tares.  It  is  complete  in  the  likeness  Jesus 
gave  in  Matt.  13  : 24  to  30. 

"The  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  likened  unto  a 
dan  which  sowed  good  seed  in  his  field. 

"But  while  men  slept,  his  enemy  came 
and  sowed  tares  among  the  wheat,  and  went 
his  way. 

"But  when  the  blade  was  sprung  up,  and 
brought  forth  fruit,  then  appeared  the 
tares  also." 

The  explanation  was  that  the  enemy  had 
<lone  this.  And  it  had  been  done  while 
men  slept.  While  the  people  slumbered, 
and  there  was  no  voice  or  wisdom  of  the 
master  sought  by  the  people.  And  the  ef- 
fect of  the  sowing  of  this  false  doctrine  was 
tares  or  persons  who  are  not  fitted  for  the 
garner  of  the  Lord  although  they  may  have 
grown  in  the  field.  Having  imbibed  an- 
other set  of  principles  than  those  Je«us 
taught,  they  had  indeed  become  subservi- 
ent to  a  different  ruler  and  king,  as  the 
Apostle  says : 

41  Whomsoever  ye  list  yourselves  servants 


to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are ;"  and  thus 
only  those  can  be  the  servants  of  Jesus 
who  accept  of  and  obey  his  word.  For 
this  reason  he  said :  "*Unto  those  Jews 
who  believed  on  him,  if  ye  continue  in  my 
word,  then  are  ye  my  disciples  indeed  ; 
and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth 
shall  make  you  free." 

They  were  his  disciples  if  they  kept  this 
good  seed  in  their  hearts,  for  "  it  is  the 
truth,"  (the  good  seed)  which  was  to  devel- 
op and  make  them  free.  Now  I  come  to  the 
question  of  the  restoration  of  this  truth,  this 
good  seed  of  the  kingdom,  the  kingdom  it- 
self, and  ask  if  any  of  you  have  considered 
how  it  should  be  done  and  what  we  should 
have  were  it  done.  Would  it  be  indeed  a 
restoration?  A  return  to  the  old  paths? 
Wherein  we  would  have  the  same  gospel 
and  the  same  church  organization ;  the 
same  faith  and  the  same  power  in  religion  ; 
the  same  promises  and  the  same  spiritual 
enjoyment;  the  same  catalogue  of  faith  and 
the  same  ordinances  in  the  church  ;  the 
same  Father  and  Son  and  the  same  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit;  and,  in  fact,  the  church  of 
Christ  restored  as  it  existed  under  him  and 
the  apostles?  So  I  believe;  and  that  any- 
thing short  of  this  will  fall  short  of  a  res- 
toration, and  short  of  the  straight  and 
narrow  way  that  leadeth  unto  life,  of 
which  Jesus  was  the  great  teacher  and 
exemplar. 

Such  a  work  as  this,  it  is  my  privilege  to 
ask  your  consideration  of ;  and  it  must  be 
made  in  a  proper  and  true  way,  do  you 
expect  to  arrive  at  an  intelligent  judgment. 
I  know,  my  friends,  that  the  feeling  of 
people  is  against  asking  for  anything  good, 
or  seeking  for  light,  in  this  way,  which  lias 
so  long  been  evilly  spoken  of,  but  it  is  no 
more  against  us  than  it  was  the  former 
servants  of  Christ.  The  people  of  Rome 
eaid  to  Paul:  "We  desire  to  hear  of  thee 
what  thou  thinkest;  for  as  concerning  this 
sect,  we  know  that  every  where  it  is  spoken 
against."  Acts  28:  22. 

Pilate  said  to  the  Jews:  "Ye  have 
brought  this  man  (Jesus)  unto  me,  as  one 
that  perverteth  the  people." 

Did  that  make  Jesus  bad  because  the 
people  accused  him  of  evil  things',  and  a 
perverter  of  their  law?  All  of  yon  answer 
not;  my  opponent,  who  engages  in  a  like 
warfare  in  this  discussion,  must  answer  no. 

Against  Stephen  it  is  said  that  they  : 

"Set  upfalae  witnesses,  which  said,  [ye«, 
said, — this  is  like  a  great  many  to-day]  '1  his 
man  'ceaseth  not  to  speak  blasphemous 
words  against  this  holy  place,  and  the  law." 

What  a  charge  they  had  against  Stephen  ! 
He  had  been  telling  them  of  the  destruction, 
of  their  temple,  and  that  they  must  listen 
to  present  revelation,  as  well  as  to  rend 
what  the  "  Lord  said  to  Moses,"  and  for 
this  they  called  him  a  terrible  fellow  and 
stoned  him  to  death. 

Has  not  my  opponent  taken  his  strong- 
hold just  like  these  people  all  of  the  time? 
Has  not  he  continued  the  charge  against  ma 
that  because  f  was  contending  for  th«  whola 
word  of  God  that  I  was  attacking  the  Bible? 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


317 


Oh,  yes,  he  says  Kelley  is  attacking  the 
Bible!  But  have  I  said  anything  against 
the  Bible?  No;  no  man  ever  heard  me 
utter  »  word  against  that  book.  But  J  have 
contended,  as  Stephen  did,  that  it  was  not 
sufficient  to  simply  read  what  God  said  to 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  or  Jesus  and  the 
apostles,  but  that  we  must  have  an  experi- 
mental knowledge  for  ourselves  through 
the  gift  and  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
means  of  inspiration  ;  and  my  opponent,  as 
the  Jewb  of  old,  cries  out  l%  he  is  attacking 
the  law."  But  I  am  not  attacking  the  law, 
hut  abiding  in  the  law,  and  telling  him  that 
if  he  believed  in  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
;''n  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  he  would  believe 
in  the  words  that  I  speak,  for  tuey  all  wrote 
of  this  day  and  this  work. 

Do  not  then,  my  friends,  be  turned  fro-m 
the  truth  by  the  tales  of  evil  that  have  been 
epun  by  the  evilly  disposed  against  the 
founding  of  the  church  of  God  in  this  age, 
bnt  cast  these  from  you  »s  you  would  the 
most  deadly  poison  or  the  tares  of  Satan 
and  examine  this  question  as  men  and 
women  who  have  judgments  of  your  own 
and  who  have  been  nobly  fashioned  in  the 
image  of  God,  that  you  should  thus  act  for 
yourselves. 

Now  all  of  these  pretended  stories  and 
tales  of  Joseph  Smith  being  a  money-digger 
in  the  sense  these  persons  tell  that  tale, 
hazel-witching,  stone-peepingand  rambling 
fortune-seeker  are  wholly,  emphatically  and 
totally  without  foundation  in  truth.  But 
tales  manufactured  by  such  subborned  wit- 
nesses as  those  against  Stephen,  and  those 
who  told  that  Jesus'  "disciples  came  and 
stole  him  away  by  night  while  they  slept," 
for  the  money  and  promised  favor  in  the 


community  extended  them.  Will  you  be 
prejudiced  against  an  investigation  upon 
this  then  by  reason  of  them '?  Not  if  you 
are  wise  men  and  women. 

It  is  a  fact  that,  when  in  his  fifteenth  year 
a  boy  of  the  State  of  New  York,  us  with 
Samuel  of  old  when  he  was  but  a  mere  lad, 
made  the  announcement  to  the  world  that 
bo  far  as  an  acceptance  of  the  various  sys- 
tems of  Christianity  in  the  world  with  our 
heavenly  Father  was  concerned,  none  of 
them  met  his  approval  in  their  doc- 
trines taught  as  a  whole,  and  in  their 
work.  And  he  went  on  to  tell  wherein 
and  the  reason  they  were  in  this  condi- 
tion. Many  thought  this  a  very  sacrileg- 
ious thing  in  the  boy  to  state  this  as  he 
did,  in  the  year  1821,  and  at  once  set 
up  a  clammor  against  him  although  he  was 
thus  young,  and  they  have  kept  it  up  ever 
since  not  even  ceasinsr  with  the  offering 
made  by  him  of  lite  itself  foi  the  truth  of  his 
statement.  He  was  murdered  for  opinions' 
sake  in  this  free  country  when  only  88 years 
of  age,  and  still  the  warfare  goes  on  under 
the  most  extravagant  and  absurd  concoc- 
tions of  slanderous  tales,  sandwiched  with 
the  most  unbecoming  and  impolite  epithets 
and  disgusting  expressions. 

But  I  wish  you  to  particularly  notice  and 
examine  the  straight  forward  account  of 
the  founding  of  the  church  by  Divine  Prov- 
idence as  related  by  an  actor  and  proper 
witness,  and  then  choose  whether  you  will 
prefer  to  believe  the  cunning  lies  and  false- 
hoods of  Satan  as  touching  this,  or  that 
which  carries  the  con  Diction  of  truth  on  the 
face  of  the  n?> ''ration, 

(Time  called.) 


318 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KKLLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BRADEN'S   SECOND  SPEECH. 


MORMON  REVELATIONS. 
GEXTJ.KMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — Mormons  are  committed  by 
organic  action  to  receive  as  revelations — I. 
The  so-called  inspired  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  by  Joseph  Smith,  the  seer,  in 
which  Joe  pretends  to  translate  and  correct 
the  word  of  God  by  inspiration.  II.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  which  they  elevate  above 
the  Bible,  for  they  declare  it  contains  "the 
fullness  of  the  gospel."  III.  The  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants.  Out  of  341  pages, 
279  are  covered  by  articles  that  they  pub- 
lish as  revelations.  IV.  Revelations  of  Joe 
Smith  publish-ed  in  "Times  and  Seasons," 
"Elders'  Jourual,"  "Morninsr  and  Evening 
Star,"  "The  Missouri  Expositor,"  "The 
Wasp,"  '-The  Millenial  Star,"  and  oth^r 
publications.  V.  Revelations  of  Cowdery, 
Rigdon  and  other  leading  Mormons,  pub- 
lished in  the  si>me  publications.  VI.  They 
regard  as  of  authority  and  of  divine  origin 
nearly  all  that  <vas  written  and  published 
before  the  death  of  Smith.  In  discussion 
they  may  deny  this,  but  in  their  church 
practice  they  act  in  accordance  with  it.  In 
communication  with  inquirers  they  will 
sometimes  deny  having  a  translation,  or 
rather  a  corruption  of  the  Bible,  that  Joe 
Smith  pretended  to  make  by  revelation, 
although  they  published  it  to' the  world  as 
done  by  inspiration  with  a  pretended  reve- 
lation as  preface;  and  with  an  introduction 
full  of  infidel  attacks  on  the  Bible  as  a  pal- 
liation for  Smith's  corruptions  of  the  Bible. 
They  will  deny  that  they  make  the  Book  of 
Mormon  a  part  of  what  they  re^-mi  as 
divine  revelations,  when  their  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants  declares  it  con- 
tains the  fullness  of  the  Gospel.  They  will 
deny  that  they  make  the  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants  a  part  of  what  they  use  as 
divine  revelations,  when  every  article  after 
the  introductory  lectures,  that  cover  but 
about  one-sixth  of  the  book,  is  headed  "A 
Revelation."  They  will  deny  that  they  re- 
gard certain  articles  if  Joe  Smith,  Rigdon 
and  01  hers  as  divine  revelations,  when  they 

Enblish  them  in  their  official  organsasreve- 
itions.  In  his  corruption  of  the  Bible  called 
an  inspired  translation,  Joe  Smith  interpo- 
lates two  verses  of  his  stuffat  the  beginning 
of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  changes 
constantly  the  form  of  the  language.  He 
interpolates  five  verses  of  his  stuff  at  the 
beginning  of  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis. 
The  ideas  in  the  latter  interpolation  have 
not  one  particle  of  warrant  or  support  in 
the  rest  of  the  Bible.  All  other  transla- 
tors have  been  content  to  compare  manu- 
scripts and  translate  the  best  reading. 
This  ignoramus  that  could  not  write  a 
decent  sentence  of  English,  pretends  to 
translate  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  to  tell  us 
that  his  stuff  was  what  the  writers  of  the 


books  of  the  Bible  wrote,  that  has  been  lost 
siuce  they  wrote.  It  is  about  as  uoriby  of 
the  faith  of  mankind  as  his  pretended  reve- 
lations in  regard  to  lost  property,  obtained 
by  looking  through  his  stolen'  peep-stone 
into  his  hat.  It  is  not  as  reliable,  for  from 
the  way  things  stuck  to  his  fingers  he  could 
tell  exactly  where  the  money  or  stolen  arti- 
cle could  be  found.  We  will  spend  no  more 
time  in  analyzing  this  monstrous  piece  of 
colossal  impudence  and  ignorance. 

.The  Book  of  Mormon  we  have  already 
examined.  We  will  now  examine  briefly 
the  stuff  that  is  blasphemously  attribuied 
to  the  Almighty,  as  revelations  from  him 
in  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants. 
On  page  65  we  are  told :  "Behold,  I  am  God 
and  have  spoken  it.  These  commandments 
are  of  me,  and  were  given  unto  my  servants 
after  the  manner  of  their  language."  (That 
is  not  true,  for  they  did  not  talk  the  brogue 
of  King  James'  translators.)  "That  after 
having  received  the  record  of  the  Nephites, 
yea,  even  my  servant  Joseph  Smith,  Jun- 
ior," (How  exact  the  Lord  is,  to  guard  the 
people  against  thinking  it  was  old  Joe,  the 
father. }  "might  have  power  to  translate 
through  the  mercy  of  God,  by  the  power  of 
God,  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  also  (that) 
those  to  whom  these  commandments  were 
given  (he  meant  might  be  given)  might 
have  power  to  lay  the  foundation  of  this 
Church,  and  to  bring  it  forth  out  of  obscur- 
ity, and  out  of  darkness,  the  only  true  and 
living  church  upon  the  face  of  the  whole 
earth,  with  which  I,  the  Lord,  am  well 
pleased."  There  you  have  the  sincere  milk 
of  Mormonism.  It  is  the  only  church  on 
the  whole  earth,  with  which  the  Lord  is 
well  pleased. 

Page  66,  Martin  Harris'  wife  disgusted 
with  the  fraud,  that  Joe  Smith  had  cajoled 
her  husband  into,  took  116  pages  of  the 
precious  revelation,  and  laid  them  in  the 
coals  that  Martin  had  covered  up,  and 
burned  them.  The  Mormon  God  did  riot 
know  what  she  had  done,  and  when 
he  missed  the  manuscript,  he  gives  Joe  a 
revelation.  He  tells  Joe  that  somebody 
had  stolen  the  manuscript,  intending,  if  Joe 
replaced  the  language  verbatim,  to  alter  it, 
and  pretend  that  Joe  was  not  inspired,  for 
he  could  not  restore  what  he  wrote  at  first, 
or  If  he  did  not  restore  it,  then  they 
would  produce  what  he  wrote  at  first, 
and  show  that  he  was  not  inspired,  for  he 
could  not  replace  it  verbatim.  But  the 
Mormon  God,  although  he  did  not  know 
who  got  the  manuscripts,  nor  that  it  was 
destroyed,  was  altogether  too  sharp  for  a 
trick,  nobody  ever  thought  of  trying.  He 
knew  a  trick  worth  a  dozen  of  a  trick  no- 
body thought  of.  He  takes  some  time  to 
study  it  out,  however.  Page  67,  we  are  told 
the  Indians  are  to  be  converted.  This  was 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


319 


one  of  the  vagaries  of  Mormonism  that 
they  seem  to  have  abandoned.  The  Indians 
are  not  Mormons,  and  the  Saints  have 
abandoned  their  conversion  to  the  apostates 
of  other  churches.  That  prophecy  is  not 
fulfilled.  Page  69,  Martin  Harris  catches 
Aleck,  for  wanting  to  see  the  plates  that 
Joe  had  not  got.  Joe  has  no  gift,  not  even 
to  show  the  plates,  expect  to  translate. 
Martin  is  told  that  he  feels  too  big.  He 
must  get  down  off  his  high  horse.  Then 
the  Mormon  God  coolly  tells  Martin  to  lie. 
He  says,  "And  I  the  Lord  command  him, 
my  servant,  Martin  Harris,  that  he  shall 
say  no  more  unto  these  (the  people  of  this 
generation),  concerning  these  things,  (the 
plates),  except  he  shall  say  I  have  seen 
them."  As  he  had  not  seen  them,  the 
Mormon  God  told  Martin  to  lie.  "And  they 
have  been  shown  unto  me  by  the  power  of 
God."  As  they  had  not  been  shown  unto 
him  by  the  power  of  God  or  Joe  Smith 
either,  the  Mormon  God  told  Martin  to  tell 
another  lie.  "And  these  are  the  words 
which  he  shall  say,"  (that  is  he  shall  tell 
two  lies)  "  but  if  he  deny  this,"  (that  is 
does  not  tell  two  lies)  "  he  will  break  the  cov- 
enant, which  he  has  before  covenanted  with 
me,  and  behold  he  is  condemned."  Be- 
cause he  would  not  do  what  he  promised 
Joe  Smith  he  would  do,  tell  two  lies  for 
him,  and  what  the  Mormon  God  tells  him 
to  do,  tell  two  lies. 

Page  72,  Oliver  Cowdery,  who  Is  Joe's 
scribe,  gets  the  big  head.  He  wants  to  have 
revelations  of  his  own  as  well  as  Joe.  He 
is  not  content  with  merely  writing  down 
Joe's  stuff.  The  Mormon  God  gives  him  a 
sugar  plum  telling  him  that  if  he  will  be  a 
good  bo"  he  will  some  day  translate  some 
plates  of  his  own.  Page  75  Joe  and  Oliver 
get  curious  over  the  fool  idea  that  the 
apostle  John  is  now  on  earth.  They  get  a 
revelation  telling  them  that  he  is  now  on 
earth.  All  devout  Mormons  believe  that 
balderdash.  This  revelation  as  now  pub- 
lished is  more  than  half  of  ita  fraud.  Pages 
-J6-77  Oliver  gets  the  big  head  again  and  is 
modified  with  a  sugar  plum  or  two  to  keep 
him  writing  for  Joe.  If  he  is  a  good  boy 
and  does  what  Joe  wants  him  to,  he  will 
some  day  translate  other  records,  "his  own 
self." 

Page  78-83.  At  last  the  Mormon  God  has 
ciphered  it  out  how  to  beat  a  trick  that 
never  was  tried.  He  will  give  a  more  par- 
ticular account  from  Nephi's  plates  instead 
of  Lehi's.  That  will  make  a  march  on  the 
fellow  who  thought  he  could  put  up  a  job 
on  the  Mormon  God. 

Pau;e  83,  we  have  a  revelation  to  Hiram 
Smith.  Page  86,  one  to  John  Knight,  sr., 
and  David  Whitmer.  Page  87,  to  John 
"Whitmer.  Page  88,  to  Peter  Whitmer.  Joe 
was  just  "chock-full'-'  and  running  over 
with  revelations.  He  had  a  revelation  for 
every  one  he  wanted  to  rope  in. 

Page  89.  The  three  witnesses  having 
been  prepared  by  special  revelations  are 
now  told  that  they  shall  see  plates,  the 
golden  breast  plate,  the  golden  sword  of 
La  ban,  the  Urim  and  Thummim  of  Jared's 


brother,  and  the  miraculous  director  of 
Lehi.  They  tell  us  in  their  testimony,  they 
saw  the  plates  and  mention  them  alone. 
Perhaps  the  Mormon  God  forgot  and  did 
not  show  them  the  rest.  They  were  told  it 
took  wonderful  divine  power  to  enable 
them  to  see  these  things.  Not  long  after 
this  eight  men  saw  them  and  no  divine 
power  was  needed.  Granny  Smith  tells  us 
that  long  before  this  she  had  asquint  at  the 
golden  breast-place,  and  without  one  part- 
icle of  miraculous  power.  Life  of  Joseph 
Smith,  pa°:e  114.  Will  some  Mormon  tell 
us  what  became  of  these  articles,  we  are 
told  an  angel  took  them  back  from  Joe  as 
fast  as  he  got  through  with  them.  Then 
he  could  not  have  shown  them  to  his  eight 
witnesses  and  his  mother.  If  the  angel  did 
not  take  them  back,  where  are  they  ?  Great 
heavy  metallic  articles  like  those  would 
certainly  be  preserved.  Why  do  not  Mor- 
mons show  thVm  ?  Why  not  point  out  the 
solid  imperishable  stone  chamber  where 
they  were  found.  It  would  silence  all 
scepticism. 

This  revelation  is  not  in  the  "Evening  and 
Morning  Star"  or  the  Book  of  Command- 
ments ;  David  Whitmer  says  there  never 
was  such  a  revelation.  The  revelation  and 
the  phrase,  Urim  and  Thummim,  and  the 
notion  about  the  Urim 'and  Thummim  were 
fabricated  in  Kirtland  in  1835  to  furnish  a 
basis  for  a  yarn  Cowdery  fabricated  and 
wrote  for  the  Messenger  and  Advocate,  and 
was  then  dated  back. 

Page  93,  we  are  told  :  I.  Joe  was  inspired 
to  translate  the  Book  of  Mormon.  IF.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  contains  t^e  "  Fullness  of 
the  Gospel"  to  Gentile  and  Jew.  III.  That 
the  Book  of  Mormon  was  given  by  inspira- 
tion and  confirmed  unto  others  by  minister- 
ing of  angels.  Page  96,  an  apostle,  we  are 
told,  is  an  elder.  The  scriptures  teach  that 
he  was  sent  as  a  witness  to  teach  and 
preach,  because  he  had  seen  Jesus  after  his 
resurrection.  We  are  told  he  imparts  by 
laying  on  his  hands  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  of  fire.  The  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  never  imparted  by  the  laying  on. 
of  an  apostle's  hands.  That  baptism  was 
imparted  by  Christ  himself  and  from  heav- 
en, and  in  no  other  way  by  any  other  per- 
son. The  apostles  imparted  spiritual  gifts 
but  not  the  baptism.  Again  there  is  an 
egregious  blunder  in  regard  to  the  baptism 
of  fire.  The  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
for  those  of  the  righteous  to  whom  Christ; 
should  impart  it.  The  baptism  in  fire  was 
for  the  wicked.  "The  wheat" — the  right- 
eous— "he  will  gather  into  his  garner." 
"The  chaff" — the  wicked — "he  will  burn 
with  unquenchable  fire" — the  baptism  in 
fire.  We  are  told  a  priest's  duties.  The 
New  Testament  does  not  know  of  such  an 
officer  or  of  its  duties.  All  Christians  are 
priests.  Page  97,  we  have  papal  confirma- 
tion by  laying  on  of  hands.  The  New  Tes- 
tament knows  nothing  of  it.  We  have  an- 
other ordinance  added — the  blessing  of  chil- 
dren. The  New  Testament  knows  nothing 
of  this.  They  have  added  another  officer, 
patriarchs,  or  blessers.  The  New  Te.sta- 


820 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATft. 


went  gives  no  liturgy ;  nearly  all  known 
•jreeds  do.  The  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cov- 
enants betrays  its  human  origin  by  giving 
i  liturgy.  Page  99,  Martin  Harris  gets  a 
revelation,  giving  the  Universalists  fits. 
Mormons  have  changed  somewhat  since 
Joe  was  fighting  Universalists.  Martin  the 
witness,  one  of  the  sacred  three,  is  told  not 
to  commit  adultery,  not  to  murder.  He 
must  have  been  a  good  one  for  a  chosen 
witness.  He  is  told  he  must  give  his  prop- 
erty to  have  the  Book  of  Mormon  printed. 
Bless  the  Lord  !  He  must  not  covet  his  own 
property.  Glory !  He  must  pay  the  printer 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Glory  hallelujah  ! 
Martin  is  told  he  must  not  argify.  He  does 
not  know  enough.  Sinners  get  "the  advan- 
tage of  him.  He  must  content  himself  with 
preaching  alone.  He  is  told  again  to  give 
up  his  property,  even  his  land,  to  pay  the 
printer  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  if  he 
don't  he  will  catch  it.  Page  102,  the  Mor- 
mon God  fixes  up  Joe's  titles.  He  is  to 
be  called— I.  Seer.  II.  Translator,  in. 
Piophet.  IV.  Apostle.  V.  Elder.  Joe 
had  saved  all  the  big  places  for  himself. 
Page  105,  we  have  this  sublime  piece  of  ar- 

fifying  done  by  the  Mormon  God:  "Behold 
am  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  and  endless 
is  my  name,  for  I  am  without  beginning  of 
days  or  end  of  years.  And  is  not  this  end- 
less?" So  there  now!  Moses  has  a  won- 
derful vision  all  to  tell  him  about  Joe  Smith. 
Joe  was  inclined  to  magnify  his  own  name, 
not  the  Lord's.  Page  109,  the  church  is 
told  they  will  be  cursed  if  they  don't  sup- 
port Joe.  Page  110,  Emma  Smith  is  to  quit 
work,  write  for  Joe  instead  of  Oliver  Cow- 
dery,  do  as  Joe  tells  her,  and  she  shall  be 
supported  by  the  church,  and  receive  won- 
derful gifts,  get  up  a  hymn-book,  etc.  How 
good  the  Mormon  God  is  to  Joe  to  act  as 
errand  boy  for  him,  and  fix  up  all  these 
little  matters  for  him.  Page  113,  Oliver 
wants  to  be  as  big  as  Joe.  He  has  revela- 
tions. He  gets  a  backset  for  it.  He  must 
not  try  to  boss  Joe  or  rival  him.  He  must 
quit  talking  about  revelations.  To  keep 
him  out  of  mischief  he  is  sent  off  to  the 
Indians.  Hiram  Page's  peep-stone  Is  not 
the  "old  oiiginal  Jacob  To wnsend."  It  is 
from  Satan.  Joe's  peep-stone  alone  is  the 
Simon-pure. 

Now  let  our  readers  stop  and  think  of 
such  stuff  as  this  coming  down  from  the  in- 
finite God  of  the  Universe.  Tricks  to  cajole 
men  into  fraud,  to  wheedle  money  out  of 
them,  to  prevent  any  one  rivaling  Joe 
Smith,  to  see  that  he  has  some  one  to  write 
for  him,  and  all  such  low  paltry,  tricky 
stuff  are  called  revelations.  Page  116,  Joe 
spreads  himself  and  prophecies  of  a  howl- 
ing old  time,  if  folks  don't  accept,  his  reve- 
lations. Page  117-18,  Uuiversalisin  a  lick. 
Also  Calvinism.  He  explains  the  first 
death  in  accordance  with  Hi » don's  theol- 
ogy. He  hits  original  sin  a  lick  also.  The 
Lord  always  reveals  that  Rigdon's  notions 
are  right;  everybody  else  is  wrong  of 
course.  What  a  happy  thing  for  the  Lord, 
that  he  always  agrees  with  Rigdon  1  Page 
119-,  David,  Peter  and  John  Wbitmer  are 


snubbed  up.  Joe  la  the  counselor  .\v\«I  Joe 
alone.  Paare  l'_G,  T.  B.  Marsh  is  stubbed 
up  also.  Pago  12).,  Peter  Whitrmr,  Oliver 
Cowdery,  P.  P.  Pratt  and  Ziba  Pet»--«on  are 
all  punched  up  a  little.  NextEzn,  T  ay  re, 
Northrup  f?v»reet,  Orson  Pratt,  and  JiMward 
Partridge  are  stirred  up.  Page  124  is  a  long 
rigmarole  about  Rigdon,  being  an  Elijah 
to  the  new  Messiah,  Joe.  Page  127,  is  a 
long  rigmarole  pretending  to  be  an  extract 
from  the  Book  of  Enoch,  mentioned  by  Jude. 
Page  136,  the  saints  are  to  possess  Kirtland 
for  ever.  To  obey  no  power  bUbMormonism. 
Pages  137-'J8-39,  James  CovolJ  is  ordered 
to  go  to  Ohio.  He  catches  Aleck,  because 
he  will  n»t  sacrifice  his  business  and 
go.  Page  140,  the  followers  with  money 
are  told  that  Joe  must  have  a  house 
to  live  in  And  translate  in.  It  must  be 
built  for  him.  Edward  Partridge  must 
let  his  business,  h/.s  store  go  to  the  dogs, 
and  attend  to  it.  Page  141,  preachers  are 
ordered  out.  To  avoid  grumbling,  Joe 
and  Sydney  mn»t  go  with  the  rest,  but  the 
Mormon  God  will  give  them  a  revelation 
in  a  short  time  to  come  back,  and  have  an 
easy  time.  Partridge  catches  it  because  he 
won't  give  up  his  business  and  run  the 
plans  of  Joe  in  the  church.  Page  147,  the 
Mormon  God  has  to  tell  some  unruly  ambi- 
tious fellows  that  Joe  is  the  only  prophet. 
Page  159,  the  Mormon  God  kindly  acts  as 
Joe's  lacky  and  provides  one  to  do  his 
drudgery  instead  of  Cowdery.  Page  161, 
the  Shakers  get  a  dig.  Page  164,  Partridge 
gets  it  again  because  he  wont  give  up  his 
business.  Page  169,  the  Mormon  God  sends 
out  Joe  and  Kydney  on  a  land  speculation. 
Page  171,  the  Mormon  God  hunts  up  another 
one  to  do  Joe's  drudgery.  Page  173,  Ezra 
Thayre  catches  Aleck  because  he  wont  give 
his  property  to  the  church  to  provide  means 
for  Joe  and  others  to  go  out  on  the  land 
speculation,  and  go  to  Missouri,  trusting  to 

Set  his  money  back,  in  the  land  in  Missouri, 
oe's  creditors  are  told  they  will  be  paid  in 
land  in  Missouri.  Page  174,  a  surveyor, 
land  agent,  and  editor,  provided  by  the 
Mormon  God.  Pages  176-80,  Partridge  gets 
a  dressing  down  for  not  believing  all  of  Joe's 
big  yarns.  Martin  Harris  is  approved  for 
giving  up  his  money,  but  he  feels  too  big. 
Phelps  wants  to  be  too  big.  Z.  Peterson  gets 
a  set  back.  It  is  amazing  how  careful  the 
Mormon  God  was  that  no  one  should  rival 
his  servant  Joseph.  Sydney  Rigdon  is  to 
write  a  description  of  the  promised  land. 
We  are  gravely  told,  "Behold,  here  is  wis- 
dom." Yea,  verily;  if  tall  lying  was  to  be 
done,  there  was  wisdom  in  selecting  Syd- 
ney to  do  it.  He  could  beat  Munchausen. 
Now  comes  a  farce  that  is  disgusting  and 
ludicrous.  Joe  had  got  a  crowd  of  men  in- 
to Missouri  by  revelation.  There  were 
more  than  could  find  work  or  means  of  liv- 
ing. Some  must  return  home.  There  was 
only  money  enough  to  pay  the  way  of  three 
part  way  back.  A  revelation  is  given  that 
Ft  is  dangerous  for  all  but  Joe  and  Sydney 
and  Oliver  to  go  by  water.  The  rest  must 
give  up  their  money  to  them  that  could  go 
on  a  steamboat  without  danger,  and  foot  it 


THE  BRADEN  AMD  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


321 


home  as  they  could.  No  wonder  that  Ezra 
Booth's  good  sense  rebelled  at  such  infa- 
mous swindling,  in  the  blasphemous  guise 
of  a  revelation.  Page  180-181,  a  second  revela- 
tion is  given  to  get  the  money  from  the 
dupes,  for  Joe,  Sydney  and  Oliver.  The 
Mormon  God  tells  them  to  doit  and  trouble 
him  no  more.  Page  182,  nevertheless  he  trims 
down  those  who  are  not  willing  to  foot  it 
back  preaching.  He  tells  them  to  go  to  St. 
Louis  he  don't  care  how,  and  go  preaching. 
Page  183,  comes  a  revelation  again  telling 
them  thatit  is  dangerous  to  goon  the  waters. 
It  is  not  needful  that  any  should  be  moving 
swiftly  on  the  waters  except  Joe  and  his 
two  pets.  The  rest  must  foot  it  home  and 
send  Joe  and  his  pets  on  their  way  in  com- 
fort. Page  186,  they  are  told  to  go  out  on  the 
preaching  mission.  Ride  if  they  can  get  the 
means,  but  put  out. 

How  any  one  could  be  so  besotted  in  su- 
perstition as  to  publish  this  stuff  with  its 
selfishness,  folly,  low  cunning,  and  hypoc- 
risy as  revelations  from  God,  is  unaccount- 
able to  all  common  sense.  That  men  should 
remain  dupes  of  such  a  knave  after  such 
imposition  is  still  more  inexplicable. 

Page  188,  Oliver  Cowdery  is  hinted  at  for 

his  adultery  with  his  hired  girl.     Rigdon's 

spiritual  wifery  was  making  trouble.     Page 

190,  the  Mormon  God  fixes  up  the  business  in 

Kirtland.    Sydney  had  been  trying  to  be  as 

\    big  as  Joe,  and  he  gets  a  lashing.   Paerel93-5, 

\   the  rebellious  ones  who  don't  mind  Joe  get 

t  a   trimming    down.    Booth  cut  off.     Part- 

«  ridge  catches  it  again.    It  was  wonderful 

.  how  much  trouble    the  Mormon  God  had 

twith  that  Partridge.    He  was  a  most  can - 

ytankerous    bird.      The  Mormon  God  tells 

'    who  shall  sell  and  go,  and  who  shall  stay, 

and  fixes  it  all  up. 

Page  194,  we  have  this  revelation,  "Behold 
it  is  said  in  my  laws  or  forbidden  to  go  in 
debt  to  their  enemies  ;  but  behold  it  is  not 
baid  at  any  time  that  the  Lord  should  not 
take  when  he  pleases,  and  pay  as  seemeth 
him  good  ;  wherefore  as  ye  are  agents,  and 
ye  are  on  the  Lord's  errand,  and  whatso- 
ever ye  do  according  to  the  will  of  the  Lord, 
is  the  Lord's  business,  and  he  hath  sent 
you  to  provide  for  his  saints  in  these  last 
days,  that  they  may  obtain  an  inheritance 
in  the  land  of  Ziou,'and  behold  I,  the  Lord, 
declare  unto,  and  my  words  are  sure  and 
shall  not  fail,  they  shall  obtain  it."  Which 
means  in  plain  English — "Don't  go  in  debt, 
but  take  by  violence  or  steal  from  your  ene- 
mies." It  was  this  revelation  that  has  been 
quoted  ever  since,  when  Mormons  stole  or 
robbed,  in  Missouri,  in  Illinois,  in  Utah, 
and  elsewhere. 

Page  195,  McLelin  is  to  send  his  money 
to  Missouri,  and  go  East  himself.  Page  197, 
the  elders  catch  it.  Let  them  beat  Joe's 
revelations  or  dry  up.  Page  199,  we  have 
the  unscriptural  nonsense  about  the  Mel- 
chizedek  priesthood.  Page  200,  children 
must  me  Baptized  at  eight  years  anyhow. 
Page  201,  Joe  gets  afraid  to  trust  Cowdery 
with  the  money  to  be  sent  to  Missouri.  He 
sends  John  Whitmer  with  him  to  watch 
him  and  report.  Page  202,  the  faithful 


are  scourged  for  not  giving  to  Joe  and  his 
pets.  Joe  and  his  pets  are  to  keep  all  they 
get,  even  if  more  than  they  want.  Page  205, 
the  faithful  are  punched  up  to  give  to  have 
Joe's  revelations  published.  Page  211,  we 
have  in  a  wonderful  revelation  the  popular 
error  that  the  Lucifer  of  Isaiah  is  the  devil 
when  he  was  the  king  of  Babylon.  Page  223, 
there  is  a  positive  revelation  that  a  won- 
derful temple  is  to  be  built  in  Missouri,  and 
a  cloud  to  rest  on  it  in  that  generation.  The 
Mormons  had  better  be  hurrying  up  or  that 
prophecy  will  not  be  fulfilled.  Page  224,  a 
fictitious  lot  of  stuff  is  got  off  about  that 
unscriptural  fabrication  the  Melchizedek 
priesthood.  Page  247,  the  farm  on  which 
old  Joe  Smith  lives  must  not  be  sold,  and 
old  Joe  must  not  allow  too  many  to  loaf 
around  him.  Joe  is  looking  out  for  the 
main  chance  always.  Page  253.  we  have 
a  long  revelation  about  having  the  faithful 
come  down  with  their  dust  to  build  a  house 
for  the  President  and  for  printing  purposes. 
It  is  positively  declared  "  Behold  there  ia 
none  other  place  appointed  than  that  which 
I  have  appointed  in  Missouri,  neither 
shall  there  be  any  other  place  for  the 
work  of  the  gathering  of  my  Saints." 
Page  136,  Joe  told  them  the  land 
of  Kirtland  and  vicinity  was  to  be  the  in- 
heritance of  them  and  their  children  for 
ever.  Now  he  says  it  is  Missouri,  and 
there  shall  be  no  other  place.  When  at 
Nauvoo  he  told  them  that  was  to  be  their 
inheritance  for  ever.  This  needs  a  little 
fixing  up.  Page  265,  one  of  the  most 
brutal  insults  ever  offered  to  a  set  of  duped 
wretches.  After  getting  thousands  of 
dupes  to  go  to  Missouri,  by  his  lying  reve- 
lations, and  after  encouraging  them  to  spoil 
the  Gentiles  by  his  revelations,  Smith  cooly 
tells  them  that  what  they  suffered  as  a 
result  of  obeying  his  revelations,  was  a 

Runishment  for  their  sins.  Page  277,  the 
formons  are  to  curse  their  enemies  and  to 
take  vengeance  on  them  even  unto  the  third 
and  fourth  generations.  This  bloody  utter- 
ance bore  its  fruit  in  the  Mountain  Meadows 
butchery  and  hundreds  of  fiendish  murders. 
Page  278,  a  crusade  against  enemies  ia 
preached.  Page  286,  Missourians  to  catch 
it.  Page  287,  another  preaching  of  a  cru- 
sade. These  bloody  utterances  have  stirred 
Mormon  fanatics  to  many  a  deed  of  blood. 
Page  289,  we  have  a  hierarchy  more  ex- 
tensive and  elaborate  than  that  of  Rome 
built  up,  and  about  as  much  like  the  simple 
New  Testament  Church.  Page  301,  we 
have  a  long  revelation  to  the  faithful  to 
shell  out,  and  build  for  Joe  a  great  tavern 
at  Nauvoo  for  him  to  live  in  and  make  much 
gain  out  of  'the  Gentiles  who  came  to 
Nauvoo.  The  Mormon  God  organizes  a 
stock  company  and  slashes  William  Law 
and  Dr.  Foster  and  others  who  haye  money 
because  they  don't  shell  out.  Probably  to 
have  the  book  close  with  "something 
religious,"  on  page  315  we  have  a  pla- 
giarized mixture  of  the  Book  of  Revelations 
and  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Then  two  letters  about  the  farce  of  the 
baptizing  the  living  for  the  dead,  written 


822 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


while  Joe  was  dodging  jus  flee  for  attempt- 
ing the  assassination  of  Gov.  Boggs,  by  the 
hand  of  that  cut-throat  Port  Rockwell,  one 
of  the  elect  band  of  Mormons,  the  Danites. 
Then  come  revelations  of  Joseph  III,  two 
sickly  little  tilings.  The  new  prophet 
must  take  courage:  steal  some  dead  man's 
manuscript,  steal  from  the  Bible,  get  some 
blatherskite  like  Rigdon  to  help  him  rant 
and  rave  and  howl  bombast  and  balderdash 
and  he  will  be  a  Mormon  prophet  worth 
while.  As  it  is  now  he  makes  a  poor  fist  of 
it.  He  must  tear  round  more  than  he  has 
yet,  or  the  Mormons  will  call  that  younger 
brother,  the  "child  of  prophecy,"  out  of  the 
madhouse. 

We  have  now  examined  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon and  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cove- 
nants. We  will  devote  a  few  lines  to  that 
impudent  fraud,  the  most  brazen  product 
of  Mormon  ignorance  and  blasphemy  called 
the  Inspired  Translation.  During  the  years 
1831-2-3  Rigdon  and  Smith  pretended  to 
translate  the  Bible  by  inspiration.  They 
deliberately  changed  words  in  the  thou- 
sands of  instances.  They  deliberately  in- 
terpolated words,  sentences  and  whole  par- 
agraphs. They  assign  no  reason  for  this, 
except  that  inspiration  told  them  to  do  this, 
in  order  to  restore  the  Bible  to  its  original 
condition  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the 
writers  They  pretended  to  restore  the 
Book  of  Enoch  mentioned  in  Jude  to  re- 
store writings  of  Moses  now  lost,  to  restore 
a  book  written  by  Abraham.  Joe  overdid 
the  matter  in  the  case  of  the  Book  of  Abra- 
ham. He  pretended  to  translate  a  papyrus 
found  with  a  mummy.  Scholarship  shows 
that  his  translation,  his  Book  of  Abraham 
is  an  ignorant  fraud.  So  are  all  other  pre- 
tended revelations  from  him.  That  blas- 
phemous fraud,  the  inspired  translation  in- 
terpolates into  the  beginning  of  the  book  of 
Genesis:  "And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses  saying,  Behold,  I  reveal 
unto  you  concerning  this  heaven  and  this 
earth.  Write  the  words  which  I  speak,  I 
am  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  Almighty 
God.  By  mine  only  begotten  I  created  these 
things." 

It  blasphemously  interpolates  into  Gene- 
sis iii,  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  five 
verses  of  such  stuff  as  this  : 

"And  I  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  saying,  that  Satan 
whom  thou  hast  commanded  in  the  name  of  mine  only 
begotten  is  the  same  which  was  from  the  beginning. 
And  he  came  before  me  saying,  'Behold  I  (what  gram- 
mar) send  me  (why  did  he  not  say  send  I),  I  will  be  thy 
Son  and  1  w  11  redeem  all  mankind,  that  one  soul  shall 
not  be  lost  and  surely  I  will  do  it,  wherefore  give  me 
thine  honor.'  But  behold,  my  beloved  Son,  which  was 
my  beloved  and  chosen  from  the  beginning,  said  unto 
me,  'Father,  thy  will  be  done  and  the  glory  be  thine 
forever.'  Whe'refore  that  Satan  rebelled  against  me 
and  sought  to  destroy  the  agency  which  the  Lord  had 
given  him  and  also  that  I  should  give  unto  him  mine 
own  power  by  the  power  of  mine  only  Vegotten,  I 
caused  that  he  should  be  cast  down  and  become  Satan 
yea  even  the  Devil,  the  father  of  all  lies,  to  deceive  and 
to  blind  men  and  to  lead  them  captive  at  his  will." 

But  the  most  blasphemous  interpolation 
is  in  Genesis  L.  Into  that  chapter  is  inter- 
polated a  long  lot  of  blasphemous  frauds 
from  the  second  chapter  of  the  second  Book 
of  Nephi  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  Listen: 

"Aud  Joseph  said  unto  his  brethren,  'I  die  and  go 


unto  my  fathers  and  I  go  down  to  my  grave  with  joy 
The  God  of  my  father  Jacob  be  with  you  to  deliver  you 
out  of  affliction  in  the  days  of  your"  bondag-  for  the 
Lord  hath  visited  me  and  I  have  obtained  a  promise  of 
the  Lord.  For  out  of  the  fruit  of  my  loins  the  Lord 
God  will  raise  up  a  righteous  branch  out  of  my  loins 
(Joe  Smith)  and  unto  thee,  whom  my  father  Jacob  hath 
named  Israel,  a  prophet  (not  the  Messiah  who  is  called 
Shilo),  and  this  prophet  shall  deliver  my  people  out  of 
Egypt  in  the  days  of  thy  bondage.  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  that  they  shall  be  scattered  again,  and  a  branch 
shall  be  broken  off,  and  carried  into  a  far  country 
(Sidney's  Nephites).  Neverthele-s  they  shall  be  re- 
membered in  the  covenants  of  the  Lord,  when  the 
Messiah  cometh.  For  he  shall  be  made  manliest  unto 
them  in  the  latter  days  in  the  Spirit  of  power.  And  he 
shall  bring  them  out  of  darkness  into  light  out 
of  hidden  darkness  and  captivity  into  freedom. 
A  seer  (Joe  Smith)  shall  the  Lord  my  God  raise 
up,  who  shall  be  a  choice  seer  (verily  Joe  was  a 
choice  seer)  unto  the  fruit  of  my  loins.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God  of  my  fathers  unto  me.  A  choice  seer  (the 
choice  Joe  Smith)  will  I  raise  upof  the  fruit  of  thy  loins. 
And  he  shall  be  esteemed  highly  among  the  fruit  of 
thy  loins,  his  brethren  (verily  the  people  who  knew 
Joe  esteemed  him  highly).  And  unto  him  I  will  give 
commandments  that  he  shall  do  a  work  for  the  fruit 
of  thy  loins.  And  he  snail  bring  them  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  covenants  which  I  have  made  with  thy  father. 
And  he  shall  do  whatsoever  work  I  shall  command 
him.  And  I  will  make  him  great  in  mine  eyes  (Joi 
always  looked  out  for  his  own  glorv)  for  he  shall  do  my 
work,  and  he  shall  belike  unto  him  whom  I  said  I 
would  raise  up  unto  you  to  deliver  my  people,  Oh  house 
of  Israel,  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  and  he  shall  be 
called  Moses.  And  by  this  name  he  shall  know  that  he 
is  of  the  house,  for  he  shall  be  saved  by  the  king's 
daughter  and  he  shall  be  called  her  son.  '(How  much 
more  definite  Sidney's  prophets  are  than  the  prophets 
of  the  Old  Testament).  And  again  a  seer  (Joe  Smith) 
will  I  raise  up  out  Of  the  f rait  of  thy  loins  (and  don't 
you  forget  it)  and  unto  him  (Joe  Smith)  will  I  give 
power  to  bring  forth  my  word  (Book  of  Mormon)  unto 
the  seed  of  thy  loins.  And  not  to  the  bringing  forth  of 
my  word  only  saith  the  Lord,  but  to  the  convincing 
them  of  my  word  (the  Bible)  which  shall  have  gone 
forth  amongst  them  in  the  last  days.  Wherefore  the 
fruit  of  thy  loins  shall  write  (the  Book  of  Mormon),  and 
the  fruit  of  the  loins  of  Judah  shall  write  (ihe  Bible). 
And  that  which  shall  be  written  by  the  fruit  of  thy 
loins  (the  Book  of  Mormon)  and  also  that  which  shall 
be  written  by  the  fruit  of  the  loins  of  Judah  (the  Bible) 
shall  grow  together  unto  the  confounding  of  false 
doctrines,  and  the  laying  down  of  contentions  and  the 
establishing  of  peace  among  the  fruit  of  thy  loins  and 
bringing  them  to  a  knowledge  of  their  fathers  in  the 
latter  days  and  also  to  a  knowledge  ofmy  covenants  saith 
the  Lord.  And  out  of  weakness  shall  he  (Joe  Smith)  be 
made  strong  in  that  day  when  my  work  (Mormonism) 
i:  all  go  forth  among  all  people  which  shall  restore 
them  who  are  of  the  House  of  Israel  in  the  last  days. 
And  that  seer  (Joe  Smith)  will  I  bless,  and  they  that 
seek  to  destroy  him  (Joe  Smith)  shall  be  confounded, 
for  this  promise  1  give  unto  you  for  I  will  remember 
you  from  generation  to  generation.  And  his  name 
shall  be  called  Joseph,  and  shall  be  aftei  the  name  of 
his  father  (old  Joe),  and  he  *ball  be  like  unto  you,  for 
the  thing  (Book  of  Mormon)  which  the  Lord  shall  bring 
forth  by  his  hand  shall  bring  my  people  unto  salva- 
tion." 

Then  follow  two  paragraphs  about  Moses 
with  all  of  Rigdon's  dehuiteness. 

Now  then,  do  you  doubt  that  the  Book  o 
Mormon  is  divine  ?  Sidney  has  fixed  it  up  so 
that  the  Patriarch  Joseph  prophesied  all 
about  it  and  Joe  Smith.  There  is  one  thing 
I  don't  understand,  Joe  Smith  was  to  be  a 
lineal  and  literal  descendant  of  Joseph  the 
patriarch.  Now  as  all  the  Nephites  were 
slain  and  as  only  the  Lamanites,  the  In- 
dians, were  left,  and  these  were  cursed  with 
a  skin  of  blackness,  the  query  arises,  was 
Joseph  a  descendant  of  the  Nephites  who 
had  been  exterminated  1,400  years?  Or  is 
heaLamanite?  Of  what  tribe  is  he,  "Big 
Injun?"  Will  Bishop  Kelley  inform  us? 
That  is  enough  of  that  blasphemous  slaugh- 
ter of  the  word  of  God,  the  Inspired 
Translation. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


323 


MR.   KELLEY'S  THIRD    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — When  my  time  was  called 
last  evening,  I  was  entering  upon  the  nar- 
rative of  young  Mr.  Smith,  with  reference 
to  the  manner  of  the  Commitment  of  the 
Gospel,  and  the  beginning  of  the  work  that 
culminated  in  the  organization  of  the 
church  in  this  century.  I  shall  this  even- 
ing first  finish  this  narrative  and  then  pro- 
ceed with  the  argument :  Pearl  of  Great 
Price,  pp.  37  to  44. 

"I  was  at  this  time  in  my  fifteenth  year.  My  father's 
family  was  proselyted  to  the  Presbyterian  faith,  and 
four  of  them  joined  that  church,  namely,  my  mother. 
Lucy,  my  brothers,  Hyrum,  Samuel  Harrison,  and 
my  sister  Sophronia. 

"During  this  time  of  great  excitement,  my  mind 
was  called  up  to  serious  reflection  aud  great  uneasi- 
ness; but  though  my  feelings  were  deep  and  often 
pungent,  still  I  kept  myself  aloof  from  all  those  parties, 
though  I  attended  their  several  meetings  as  often  as 
occasion  would  permit:  but  in  process  of  time  my 
mind  became  somewhat  partial  to  the  Methodist  sect, 
and  I  felt  some  desire  to  be  united  with  them,  but  so 
great  was  the  confusion  and  strife  among  the  different 
denominations,  that  it  was  impossible  for  a  person, 
young  as  I  was,  and  so  unacquainted  with  men  and 
tilings,  to  come  to  any  certain  conclusion  who  was 
right,  and  who  was  wrong.  My  mind  at  different  times 
was  greatly  excited,  the  cry  and  tumult  was  so  great 
and  incessant.  The  Presbyterians  were  most  decided 
against  the  Baptists  and  Methodists,  and  used  all 
their  powers  of  reason  or  sophistry  to  prove  their 
errors,  or,  at  least  to  make  the  people  think  they  were 
in  error.  On  the  other  hand  the  Baptists  and  Method- 
iits,  in  their  turn,  were_  equally  zealous  to  establish 
their  own  tenets,  and  disprove  all  others. 

"In  the  midst  of  this  war  of  words  and  tumult  of 
opinions,  I  often  said  to  myself,  what  is  to  be  done? 
Who  of  all  these  parties,  are  right?  or,  are  they  all 
wrong  together?  If  any  one  of  them  be  right,  which 
is  it,  and  how  shall  I  know  it  ? 

"  While  I  was  laboring.under  the  extreme  difficulties, 
caused  by  the  contest  of  these  parties  of  religionists, 
I  was  one  day  reading  the  Epistle  of  James,  first  chap- 
ter  and  fifth  verse,  which  reads:  'If  any  of  you  lack 
wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  unto  all  men 
liberally  and  upbraideth  not,  and  it  shall  be  given 
him.1  Never  did  any  passage  of  scripture  come  with 
more  power  to  the  heart  of  man,  than  this  did  at  thii 
time  to  mine.  It  seemed  to  enter  with  great  force  into 
every  feeling  of  my  heart.  I  reflected  on  it  again  and 
again,  knowing  that  if  any  person  needed  wisdom 
from  God,  I  did;  for  how  to  act  I  did  not  know,  and 
unless  I  could  get  more  wisdom  than  I  then  had,  would 
never  know  ;  for  the  teachers  of  religion  of  the  differ- 
ent sects  understood  the  same  passage  so  differently, 
as  to  destroy  all  confidence  in  settling  the°question  by 
an  appeal  10  the  Bible.  At  length  I  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  I  must  either  remain  in  darkness  and 
confusion,  or  else  I  must  do  as  James  directs,  that  is, 
ask  of  God.  I  at  length  came  to  the  determination  to 
ask  of  God,  concluding  that  if  he  gave  wisdom  to 
them  that  lacked  wisdom,  aud  would  give  liberally 
and  not  upbraid,  I  might  venture.  So,  in  accordance 
with  this  my  determination  to  ask  of  Uod,  I  retired  to 
to  the  woods  to  make  the  attempt.  It  was  on  the 
morning  of  a  beautiful  clear  day,  early  in  the  spring 
of  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty.  It  was  the  first 
time  in  my  life  I  had  made  such  an  attempt,  for  amidst 
all  of  my  anxieties  I  had  never  as  yetmade  the  attempt 
to  pray  vocally. 

"  After  I  had  retired  into  the  place  where  I  had 
previously  designed  to  go,  having  looked  around  me 
and  finding  myself  alone,  I  kneeled  down  and  began 
to  offer  up  the  deiires  of  my  heart  to  God.  I  had 
scarcely  dene  so,  when  immediately  I  was  seized  upon 
by  some  power  which  entirely  overcame  me,  and  had 
such  astonishing  influence  over  me  as  to  bind  my 
tongue  so  that  I  could  not  speak.  Thick  darkness 
gathered  around  me,  and  it  seemed  tome  for  a  time,  as 
if  I  were  doomed  to  sudden  destruction.  Butexerting  all 
my  powers  to  call  upon  God  to  deliver  me  out  of  the 
power  of  this  enemy,  which  had  seized  upon  me,  and 


at  the  very  moment  when  I  was  ready  to  sink  Into 
despair  and  abandon  mvself  to  destruction,  not  to  an 
imaginary  ruin,  but  to  the  power  of  some  actual  being 
from  the  unseen  world,  who  ha;l  such  a  marvelous 
power  as  I  had  never  before  felt  in  any  being  Jnsi  at 
this  moment  of  great  alarm,  I  saw  a  pillar  of  light 
exactly  over  my  head,  above  the  brightness  of  the 
sun,  which  descended  gradually  until  it  fell  upon  me. 
It  no  sooner  appeared  than  I  found  myself  delivered 
from  the  enemy  which  held  me  bound.  When  the 
light  rested  upon  me,  I  saw  two  personages,  whose 
brightness  and  glory  defy  all  descriptii  n,  standing 
above  me 'in  the  air.  One  of  them  spake  unto  me, 
calling  me  by  n.'ime,  and  said  (pointing  to  the  other) 
'THIS  IS  MY  BELOVED  9ON,  HKAR  HIM.' 

"My  object  in  going  to  enquire  of  the  Lord  was  to 
know  which  of  all  the  sects  was  right,  that  I  might 
know  which  to  join.  No  sooner  therefore,  did  I  get 
possession  of  myself,  so  as  to  be  able  to  spenk,  than  I 
asked  the  personages  who  stood  above  me  in  the  light, 
which  of  all  the  sects  was  right  (for  at  this  time  it  hud 
never  entered  into  my  heait  that  all  were  wrong),  and 
which  I  should  join  I  was  answered  that  I  musi  join 
none  of  them,  for  they  were  all  wrong,  and  the  person- 
age who  addressed  me  said,  '  That  all  their  crt-eds  were 
an  abomination  in  his  sip-fat;  that  those  professors 
were  all  corrupt,  they  draw  near  to  me  with  their  lips, 
but  their  hearts  are  far  from  me,  they  teach  for  doc- 
trine the  commandments  of  men,  having  a  form  of 
godliness,  but  tdey  deny  the  power  thereof. ' 

"He  again  forbade  me  to  join  with  any  of  thorn; 
and  many  other  things  did  he  say  unto  me  which  I  can- 
not write  at  this  time.  When  I  came  to  myself  again,  I 
found  myself  lying  on  my  back,  looking  up  into  heaven. 

"Some  few  days  after  I  had  this  vision,  I  happened 
to  be  in  company  with  one  of  the  Methodist  preachers, 
wko  was  very  active  in  the  before  mentioned  religious 
excitement,  and  conversing  with  him  on  the  subject 
of  religion,  I  took  occasion  to  give  him  an  account  of 
the  vision  which  I  had  had.  I  was  greatly  surprised 
at  his  behavior,  he  treated  my  communication  not  only 
lightly,  but  with  great  contempt,  saying  it  was  all  of 
the  devil,  that  there  were  no  such  things  as  visions  or 
revelations  in  these  days;  that  all  such  things  hnd 
ceased  with  the  apostles,  aud  that  there  never  would 
be  any  more  of  them. 

"I  soon  found,  however,  that  my  telling  the  story 
had  excited  a  great  deal  of  prejudice  against  me  among 
professors  of  religion,  and  was  the  cause  of  great  per- 
secution which  continued  to  increase;  and  though  I 
was  an  obscure  boy,  only  between  fourteen  and  fifteen 
years  of  age,  and  my  circumstances  in  li/e  such  as  to 
make  a  boy  of  no  consequence  in  the  world,  yet  men  of 
high  standing  would  take  notice  sufficient  to  excite  the 
public  mind  against  me,  and  create  a  hot  persecution, 
and  this  was  common  among  all  the  sects,  all  united  to 
persecute  me. 

"It  has  often  caused  me  serious  reflection,  both  then 
and  since,  how  very  strange  it  was  that  an  obscure  boy, 
of  a  little  orer  fourteen  years  of  age,  and,  one,  too,  who 
was  doomed  to  the  necessity  of  obtaining  a  scanty 
maintenance  by  his  daily  labor,  should  be  thought  a 
character  of  sufficient  importance  to  attract  the  atten- 
tion of  the  great  ones  of  the  most  popular  sects  of  the 
day_,  so  as  to  create  in  them  a  spirit  of  the  hottest  perse- 
cution and  reviling.  But  strange  or  not,  so  it  was,  and 
was  often  cause  of  great  sorrow  to  myself.  However  it 
was,  nevertheless,  a  fact,  that  I  had  had  a  vision.  I 
have  thought  since,  that  I  felt  much  like  Paul  when 
he  made  his  defence  before  king  Agrippa,  and  related 
the  account  of  the  vision  he  had  when  he  "saw  a  light 
and  heard  a  voice,'-'  and  still  there  were  but  few 
who  believed  him ;  some  said  he  was  dishonest,  others 
said  he  was  mad,  and  he  was  ridiculed  and  reviled; 
but  all  this  did  not  destroy  the  reality  of  his  vision. 
He  had  seen  a  vision  ;  he  knew  he  had,  and  all  the.  per- 
secution under  heaven  could  not  make  it  othe  wise  ; 
and  though  they  should  persecute  him  unto  death,  yet 
he  knew  and  would  know  unto  his  last  breath,  that  ha 
had  both  seen  a  light,  and  heard  a  voice  speaking  to 
him,  and  all  the  world  could  not  make  him  think  or 
believe  otherwise 

"So  it  was  with  me,  I  had  actually  seen  a  light,  ana 
In  the  midst  ot  that  light  I  saw  two  personages  an.l 
they  did  in  reality  speak  unto  me,  or  one  of  them  did  ; 
and  though  I  was  hated  and  persecuted  for  saying  that 
I  had  seen  a  vision,  yet  it  was  true;  and  while  they 
were  persecuting  me,  reviling  me,  and  speaking  all 


124 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


manner  of  evil  agnlnst  me,  falsely  for  so  saying,  T  was 
led  to  say  in  my  heart,  why  persecute  for  telling  the 
truth  ?  I  have  actually  seen  a  vision,  and  "who  am  I 
that  I  can  withstand  God?"  or  why  does  the  world 
think  to  make  me  deny  what  I  have  actually  seen  ?  for 
I  had  seen  a  vision;  I  knew  It,  and  I  knew  that  God 
knew  it,  and  I  could  not  deny  it,  neither  Jare  I  do  it: 
at  least  I  knew  that  by  so  doing  I  would  offend  God 
and  come  under  condemnation. 

"During  the  space  of  time  which  intervened  between 
the  time  I  had  the  vision,  arid  the  year  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  twenty-three,  (having  been  forbidden  to  join 
any  of  the  religious  sects  of  the  day,  and  being  of  very 
tender  years,  and  persecuted  by  those  who  ought  to 
have  been  my  friends,  and  to  have  treated  me  kindly, 
and  if  they  supposed  me  to  be  deluded  to  have  endeav- 
ored, in  a  proper  and  affectionate  manner,  to  have  re- 
claimed me,)  I  was  lelt  to  all  kinds  of  temptations, 
and  mingling  with  all  kinds  of  society,  I  frequently 
fell  into  many  foolish  errors,  and  displayed  the  weak- 
ness of  youth,  and  the  corruption  of  human  nature, 
which  I  am  sorry  to  say  led  me  into  divers  temptations, 
19  the  gratification  of  many  appetites  offensive  in  the 
sight  of  God.  In  consequence  of  these  things  I  often 
felt  condemned  for  my  weakness  and  imperfections; 
when  on  the  evening  of  i  he  above  mentioned  twenty- 
first  of  September,  after  I  had  retired  to  my  bed  for  the 
night,  I  betook  myself  to  prayer  and  supplication  to 
Almighty  God,  for  forgiveness  of  all  my  sins  and  fol- 
lies, and  also  for  a  manifestation  to  me  that  I  might 
know  of  my  state  and  standing  before  him;  for  I  had 
full  confidence  in  obtaining  a  divine  manifestation  us  I 
had  previously  had  one." 

"  While  I  was  thus  in  the  act  of  calling  upon  God,  I 
discovered  a  light  appearing  in  the  room,  which  con- 
tinued to  increase  until  the  room  was  lighter  than 
at  noonday,  when  immediately  a  personage  appeared 
at  my  bedside,  standing  in  the  air,  for  his  feet  did  not 
touch  the  floor.  He  had  on  a  loose  robe  of  most  exquis- 
ite whiteness.  It  was  a  whiteness  beyond  anything 
earthly  I  had  ever  seen;  nor  do  I  believe  that  any 
earthly  thing  could  be  made  to  appear  so  exceedingly 
•white  and  brilliant.  His  hands  were  naked,  and  his 
arms  also,  a  little  above  the  wrist;  so,  also,  were  his 
feet  naked,  as  were  his  legs,  a  little  above  the  ankles. 
His  head  and  neck  were  also  bare.  I  could  discover 
that  he  had  no  other  clothing  on  but  this  robe,  as  it 
was  open,  so  that  I  could  see  into  his  bosom. 

"Notonly  was  his  robe  exceedingly  white,  but  his 
Whole  person  was  glorious  beyond  description,  and 
his  countenance  truly  like  lightning.  The  room  wag 
exceedingly  light,  but  not  so  very  bright  as  imme- 
diately round  his  person.  When  I  first  looked  upon 
him  I  was  afraid,  but  the  fear  soon  left  me.  He  called 
me  by  name,  and  said  unto  me  that  he  was  a  messenger 
sent  from  the  presence  of  God  to  me,  and  that  his  name 
was  Nephi  That  God  had  a  work  for  me  to  do,  and 
that  my  name  should  be  had  for  good  and  evil  among 
all  nations,  kindreds  and  tongues;  or  that  it  should  ba 
both  good  and  evil  spoken  of  among  all  people.  He 
Bald  there  was  a  book  deposited,  written  upon  gold 
plates,  giving  an  account  of  the  former  inhabitants  of 
this  continent,  and  the  source  from  whence  they 
sprang.  He  also  said  that  the  fullness  of  the  everlast- 
ing gospel  was  contained  in  it,  as  delivered  by  the  Sa- 
vior to  the  ancient  inhabitants.  Also,  that  there  were 
two  stones  in  silver  bows  (and  these  stones,  fastened  to 
n  breastplate,  constituted  what  is  called  the  Urim  and 
Thummim)  deposited  with  the  plates,  and  the  posses- 
sion and  use  of  these  stones  was  what  constituted 
Seers  in  ancient  or  former  times,  and  that  God  had  pre- 
pared them  for  the  purpose  of  translating  the  book. 

"  After  telling  me  these  things,  he  commenced 
quoting  the  prophecies  of  the  old  Testament.  He  first 
quoted  part  of  the  thiid  chapter  of  Malachi,  and  he 
quoted  also  the  fourth  or  last  chapter  of  the  same  pro- 
phecy, though  with  a  little  variation  from  the  way  it 
reads  in  our  Bibles.  Instead  of  quoting  the  first  verse 
as  it  reads  in  our  books  he  quoted  it  thus:  '  For  behold 
the  day  cometh  that  shall  burn  as  an  oven,  and  all  the 
proud,  yea,  and  all  that  do  wickedly,  shall  burn  as 
etubble,  for  they  that  come  shall  burn  them,  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  that  it  shall  leave  them  neither  root 
nor  branch.'  And  again,  he  quoted  the  fifth  verse 
thus:  'Behold,  I  will  reveal  unto  yoii  the  Priesthood 
by  the  hand  of  Elijah  the  prophet,  before  the  coming 
of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.'  He  also 
quoted  the  next  verse  differently:  '  And  he  shall  plant 
in  the  hearts  of  tha  children  the  promises  made  to  the 
fathers,  and  the  hearts  of  the  children  shall  turn  to 
their  fathers ;  if  it  were  not  so,  the  whole  earth  would 
be  utterly  wasted  at  His  coming." 

"In  addition  to  these  he  quoted  the  eleventh  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  saying  that  it  was  about  to  be  fulfilled.  He 
quoted  also  the  third  chapter  of  Acts,  twenty-second 


and  twenty-third  verse*,  precisely  as  they  stand  !n 
our  New  Testament.  He  said  that  the  prophet  was 
Christ,  but  the  day  had  not  yet  come  when  '  they  who 
would  not  hear  his  voice  should  be  cut  off  from 
among  the  people.'  but  soon  would  come. 

"  He  also  quoted  the  second  chapter  of  Joel,  from  the 
twenty -eighth  to  the  last  verse.  He  also  said  that  this 
was  not  yet  fulfilled,  but  was  soon  to  be.  And  he  further 
stated,  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  was  soon  to  come  in. 
He  quoted  many  other  passages  of  scripture  and  offered 
many  explanations,  which  cannot  be  mentioned 
here.  Again,  he  told  me  that  when  I  got  those  plates 
of  which  he  had  spoken  (for  the  time  that  they  should 
be  obtained  was  not  yet  fulfilled)  I  should  not  show 
them  to  any  person,  neither  the  breastplate  with  the 
Urim  and  Thummim,  only  tothose  to  whom  I  should  be 
commanded  to  show  them;  if  I  did,  I  should  be  des- 
troyed. While  he  was  conversing  "with  me  about  the 
plates,  the  vision  was  open  to  my  mind  that  I  could 
see  the  place  where  the  plates  were  deposited,  and 
that  so  clearly  and  distinctly  that  I  knew  the  place 
again  when  I  visited  it. 

"After 'bis  communication,  I  saw  the  light  in  the 
room  bi  in  'o  gather  immediately  around  the  person 
of  him  \  ho  bad  been  speaking  to  me,  and  it  continued 
to  do  so  until  the  room  was  again  left  dark,  except 
just  around  him,  when  instantly  I  saw,  as  it  were,  a 
conduit  open  right  up  into  heaven,  and  he  as. 
cended  up  until  he  entirely  disappeared,  and  the  room 
was  left  as  It  had  been  before  this  heavenly  light  had 
made  its  appearance. 

I  lay  musing  on  the  singularity  of  the  scene,  and 
marvelling  greatly  at  what  had  been  told  me  by  this 
extraordinary  messenger,  when,  in  the  midst  of  my 
meditation,  I  suddenly  discovered  that  my  room  was 
again  beginning  to  get  lighted,  and  in  an  instant, 
as  it  were,  the  heavenly  messenger  was  again  by  my 
bedside.  He  commenced,  and  related  the  very  same 
things  which  he  had  done  at  his  first  visit,  without  the 
least  variation,  which,  having  done,  he  informed  me 
of  great  judgments  that  were  coming.upon  the  earth, 
with  great  desolations  by  famine,  sword  and  pestilence, 
and  that  these  grievous  judgments  would  come  on  the 
earth  in  this  generation.  Having  related  these  things, 
he  again  ascended  as  he  had  done  before. 

"By  this  time,  so  deep  was  the  Impression  made  on 
my  mind,  that  sleep  had  fled  from  my  eyes,  and  I  lay 
overwhelmed  with  astonishment  at  what  I  had  both 
seen  and  heard;  but  what  was  my  surprise  when  I  again 
beheld  the  same  messenger  at  my  bedside,  and  heard 
him  rehearse  or  repeat  over  again  to  me  the  same 
things  as  before,  and  added  a  caution  to  me,  telling  mo 
that  Satan  would  try  to  tempt  me  (in  consequence  of 
the  indigent  circumstances  of  my  father's  family)  to 
get  the  plates  for  the  purpose  of  getting  rich.  This 
he  forbid  me,  saying,  that  I  must  have  no  other  object  in 
view  in  getting  the  plates  but  to  glorify  Qod,  and  must 
not  be  influenced  by  any  other  motive  than  of  building 
his  kingdom,  otherwise  I  could  not  get  them. 

"Convenient  to  the  village  of  Manchester,  Ontario 
county,  New  York,  stands  a  hill  of  considerable  size, 
and  the  most  elevated  of  any  in  the  neighborhood. 
On  the  west  side  of  this  hill,  not  far  from  the  top,  under 
a  stone  of  considerable  size,  lay  the  plates  deppsited 
in  a  stone  box;  this  stone  was  thick  and  rounding  in 
the  middle  on  the  upper  side,  and  thinner  towards  the 
edges,  so  that  the  middle  part  of  it  was  visible  above 
the  ground,  but  the  edge  all  round  was  covered  with 
earth.  Having  removed  the  earth  and  obtained  a 
lever  which  I  got  fixed  under  the  edge  of  the  stone, 
and  with  a  little  exertion  raised  it  up ;  I  looked  in,  and 
there  indeed  did  I  behold  the  plates,  the  Urim  and 
Thummim,  and  the  breastplate  as  stated  by  the  mes- 
senger. The  box  in  which  they  lay  was  formed  by  ly- 
ing stones  together  in  some  kind  of  cement.  In  the 
bottom  of  the  box  were  laid  two  stones  crossways  of 
the  box,  and  on  these  stonei  lay  the  plates  and  the 
other  things  with  them. 

"As  my  father's  worldly  circumstances  were  very 
limited,  we  were  under  the  necessity  of  laboring  with 
our  hands,  hiring  by  day's  work  and  otherwise  as  we 
could  get  opportunity;  sometimes  we  wer«j  at  home 
and  sometimes  abroad  and  by  continued  labor  were 
able  to  get  a  comfortable  maintainance. 

"In  the  year  1824  my  father's  family  met  with  a 
great  affliction,  by  the  death  of  my  eldest  brother 
Alvin.  In  the  month  October,  1825,  I  hired  with  an 
old  gentleman,  by  the  name  of  Josiah  Stoal,  who  lived 
in  Chenango  county,  state  of  New  York.  He  had  heard 
something  of  a  silver  mine  having  been  opened  by  the 
Spaniards  in  Harmony,  Susquehanna  county,  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  had,  previous  to  my  hiring  wilh 
him,  been  digging,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  discover 
the  mine.  After  I  went  to  live  with  him  he  took  ma 
among  the  rest  of  his  hands  to  dig  for  the  silver  miue, 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


32( 


atwhich  I  continued  to  work  fornearly  a  month  without 
success  In  our  undertaking,  and  finally  I  prevailed 
•with  the  old  gentleman  to  cease  digging  after  it. 
Hence  arose  the  very  prevalent  story  of  my  having 
been  a  money  digger. 

"During  the  time  that  I  was  thus  employed,  I  was 
put  to  board  with  a  Mr.  Isaac  Hale,  of  that  place:  it 
was  there  that  I  first  saw  my  wife  his  daughter)  Emma 
Hale.  On  the  28th  of  January,  1827,  we  were  married, 
•while  yet  I  was  employed  in  the  service  of  Mr.  Stoal. 

"At  length  the  time  arrived  for  obtaining  the  plates, 
the  Urim  and  Thummin,  and  the  breastplate.  On  the 
22nd  day  of  September,  1827,  having  gone,  as  usual,  at 
the  end  of  another  year,  to  the  place  vriiere  they  were 
deposited  ;  the  same  heavenly  messenger  delivered 
them  up  to  me  with  this  charge,  that  I  should  be  re- 
sponsible for  them ;  that  if  I  should  let  them  go  care- 
lessly or  through  any  neglect  of  mine,  I  should  be  cut 
off;  but  that  if  I  would  use  all  my  endeavors  to  pre- 
•serve  them,  until  he,  the  messenger,  should  call  for 
them,  they  should  be  protected." 

I  have  thus  been  particular  in  reading  to 
you  this  narrative,  because  it  is  so  entirely 
unlike  the  Carious  manufactured  stories  told 
about  the  visions,  work,  character,  habHs 
and  integrity  of  this  boy,  that  I  wished 
them  placed  side  by  side  before  you. 

The  detailed  circumstances  by  young  Mr. 
Smith  are  altogether  different  to  the  old 
woman's  tales  and  neighborhood  gossip 
so  universally  given  out  by  his  enemies. 

And  is  it  not  strange  that  these  same 
parties  who  pretend  to  tell  you  how  it  all 
was,  and  just  what  actually  did  occur,  should 
also  deny  that  anything  at  all  remarkable 
occurred.  Why  do  they  tell  so  much  for 
about  satan  and  f;he  peep-stones  and  water- 
witching,  and  the  plates  and  angels,  and 
the  frock  of  sand  and  tool  chests,  if  there 
was  nothing  at  all?  And  how  can  any  hon- 
est man  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  will 
reject  Mr.  Smith's  statement  of  the  matter 
since  he  was  the  one  there  and  knew  what 
happened  and  believe  what  his  enemies 
said  about  it  when  they  admit  they  were 
not  there  and  know  nothing  about  it,  ex- 
cept what  they  got  from  Mr.  Smith  second 
or  third  handed?  If  the  statement  comes 
from  him  any  way,  shall  we  not  go  directly 
to  him  instead  of  taking  it  through  his 
enemies?  That  sounds  too  much  like  the 
old  story  on  the  disciples  charging  they 
came  and  stole  him  away,  for  me.  Satan's 
hand  is  discernable.  Such  in  brief  is  an 
account  of  the  beginning  of  the  restoration 
of  the  gospel  through  this  young  boy  of 
Manchester.  And  now,  ladies  and  gentle- 
men, I  shall  proceed  to  examine  with  you 
the  work  as  prefigured  by  the  positions 
laid  down  by  me  the  first  evening. 

I.  That  the  principles  and  faith  of  the 
church  are  in  harmony  with  the  word  of 
of  God  as  contained  in  the  Bible.     Are  in- 
deed the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom,  which 
when  men  have  sown  bring  forth  fruit  in 
the   good  ground  acceptable   with    Jesus 
Christ. 

II.  That  from  this  faith  and  these  princi- 
ples there  was  a  falling  away  and  perver- 
sion after  the  first  century,  as  was  clearly 
predicted  by  Jesua  and  the  apostles,   and 
that  the  church  went  into  the  wilderness 
and  her  authority    was  taken  away;  and 
that  since  the  falling  away  was  occasioned 
by  reason  of  the  perversion  of  the  truth  and 
a  corruption  of   the  gospel  principles   as 
taught  in  the  early  ages,  the  restoration 


must  consist  of  a  reinstatement  of  these 
same  principles  and  truths,  with  the  same 
organization  and  authority  as  was  had  in 
the  early  church  of  the  Saints. 

III.  That  the  restoration  was  made  and 
the  order  of  the  church  reinstated  by  Christ 
himself  in  accordance  with  the  predictions 
made  by  the  prophets  relative  to  this  par- 
ticular work  of  the  last  days  or  time.  It 
may  be  objected  that  this  work  set  out  in 
the  prophecies  to  be  instituted  and  estab- 
lished under  the  immediate  supervision  of 
Christ  himself,  as  predicted  by  the  prophets 
relates  to  the  restoration  of  Israel  and  their 
return  to  their  own  country,  rather  than  to 
a  restoration  of  the  gospel.  My  answer  to 
this  is,  that  one  of  the  things  to  be  eventu- 
ally accomplished  by  the  work  is  the  re- 
storation of  Israel  to  their  own  country; 
but  that  is  but  a  part  of  the  work  to  be  ac- 
complished or  even  of  restoration  :  it  is  but 
one  of  the  results  to  be  brought  about  by 
the  replanting  of  the  gospel  standard.  The 
visible  beginning  of  the  entire  work  is  the 
"lifting  up  of  the  ensign."  Isa.  11.  "The 
lifting  up  of  a  standard  to  the  people  and 
the  casting  up  of  a  highway."  Isa.  62.  The 
calling  ard  sending  forth  of  men  under  the 
proclamation  as  foreseen  by  the  prophet: 
"Behold,  I  will  send  for  many  fishers,  saitb, 
the  Lord,  and  they  shall  fish  them;  and 
afterwards  I  will  send  for  many  hunters, 
and  they  shall  hunt  them  from  every  moun- 
tain and  from  every  hill."  "I  will  cause 
them  to  know  my  hand  and  my  might,  and 
they  shall  know  that  my  name  is  Jehovah." 
Jer.  16.  The  Lord  is  to  do  his  own  work 
and  manifest,  His  "hand,"  show  forth  his 
power,  communicate  with  the  people,  and 
notwithstanding  the  claim  made  by  the 
many  of  the  world,  that  the  day  of  revela- 
tion has  ceased  and  that  God  was  to  have 
nothing  more  to  do  in  the  enlightenment 
and  conversion  of  the  human  family,  He 
is  to  plead  with  the  people  "  face  to  face," 
like  as  he  plead  with  Israel  under  Moses, 
and  bring  them  into  the  bond  of  the  cove- 
nant. The  more  particularly  distinguish- 
ing feature  of  this  work  which  the  Lord  ia 
to  perform  among  the  people  is  that  of  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel. 

This  is  in  fact  God's  ensign  ;  his  standard, 
the  way  of  life  and  salvation ;  "Immor- 
tality and  eternal  life  is  brought  to  light 
through  the  Gospel."  It  is  the  means  by 
which  the  Gentiles  are  made  "partakers  of 
the  promises  in  Christ."  "The  power  of 
God  unto  salvation."  Hence,  the  work  of 
restoration  when  it  begins  will  be  by  first 
recommitting  this  means  of  preparation,  and 
John  says  of  the  beginning  of  the  work  :  "I 
saw  another  angel  fly  through  the  midst  of 
heaven  having  the  everlasting  Gospel  to 
preach  unto  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth, 
and  to  every  nation  and  kindred,  and  tongue 
and  people.  Saying  with  a  loud  voice,  fear 
God  and  give  glory  to  him  for  the  hour  of 
his  judgment  is  come:  and  worship  him 
that  made  heaven  and  earth  and  the  sea 
and  the  fountains  of  water."  The  restora- 
tion is  not  only  to  consist  of  the  gathering 
of  Israel  into  the  bonds  of  the  Covenant, 


826 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  LED  ATE. 


but  in  the  language  of  the  apostle  Peter, 
"Of-all  things  which  God  hath  spoken  by 
the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since  the 
world  began."  All  things  which  have  been 
predicted  are  to  be  restored.  The  time  of 
this  work  the  apostle  places  exactly  with 
that  spoken  of  by  the  prophets  and  Jesus, 
and  the  apostles  Paul  and  John  :  "And  he 
shall  send  Jesus  Christ,  which  before  was 
preached  unto  you  :  Whom  the  heaven  must 
receive  until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all 
things, "etc.  Acts3:20-21.  Then  the  times 
of  the  restitution  is  in  the  time  when  Jesus 
too,  will  come,  in  the  "hour  of  God's  judg- 
ment." And  in  the  time  when  "this  Gospel 
of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the 
world  for  a  witness  unto  all  nations ;  and 
then  shall  the  end  come."  The  same  as  the 
Revelator  said  was  to  be  preached  "to  every 
nation,  kindred,  tongue  and  people."  "This 
Gospel,"  says  Jesus  referring  to  the  one 
which  he  was  preaching,  which  consisted 
not  only  of  words,  a  record  of  the  dead  letter 
but  of  power,  as  described  by  the  evangelise 
Mark  1:27;  "what  thing  is  this?  What 
new  doctrine  is  this?  For  with  authority 
commandeth  he  even  the  unclean  spirits 
and  they  do  obey  him."  This  is  the  Gospel 
that  is  to  be  preached  as  a  "witness  unto 
all  nations;"  and  it  will  be,  "a  witness," 
for  it  will  be  unlike  the  preaching  which 
has  laid  claims  to  being  the  Gospel  for  cen- 
turies ;  hence,  an  evidence  of  itself  and 
truly  "a  witness"  that  the  angel  has  made 
his  way  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  the 
times  of  the  restoration  or  restitution  is  at 
hand.  It  is  not  true  as  is  supposed  by  my 
opponent,  that  all  there  is  to  the  Gospel  is 
the  record  which  any  one  may  take  up  and 
read.  If  that  was  true,  all  who  read  the 
account  of  the  Gospel  would  be  saved ;  "for 
it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation."  But 
many  read  the  record  and  do  not  believe  it. 
The  Gospel  then  is  in  the  word — God's 
truth,  and  in  power  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence  the  apostle  says:  "For  our  Gospel 
came  not  unto  you  in  word  only,  but  in 
power  and  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  much 
assurance."  Here  is  where  we  get  the  idea 
of  true  preaching,  of  Gospel  preaching.  It 
is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  a  man  can 
preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ  without  the 
power  of  Christ's  Spirit — to  aid  him ;  there 
is  no  instance  on  record  of  where  this  was 
done.  Even  Jesus  himself  could  not  do  it 
without  this  Spirit  and  power.  Hence  it  i8 
written  of  him  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  61:1, 
'The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me, 
because  he  has  anointed  me  to  preach  good 
tidings  unto  the  meek."  And  before  Jesus 
sent  his  disciples  into  the  world  to  preach, 
he  said  unto  them,  "But  tarry  ye  at  Jeru- 
ealem  until  ye  are  endowed  with  power  from 
on  high."  Although  they  had  been  three 
years  with  the  master  himself,  receiving 
instructions,  and  had  then  received  the  full- 
ness of  the  Gospel  so  far  as  its  presentation 
in  word  is  concerned,  they  were  not  yet  to 
undertake  to  minister  his  word,  until  they 
should  have  with  them  the  power,  as  well 
as  the  letter  of  the  Gospel.  To  undertake 
to  preach  otherwise  than  by  this  would  be 


to  make  confusion  and  discord  in  their  work 
instead  of  bringing  unity  and  arriving  at 
the  truth ;  this  is  the  reason  we  find  the 
world  in  the  state  it  is  in  to-day.  Instead 
of  men  teaching  as  directed  by  that  Spirit 
that  was  to  "guide  them  into  all  truth," 
they  have  preached  as  they  have  been 
educated  in  their  peculiar  systems,  and  their 
educations  having  been  in  different  schools 
and  there  being  an  absence  of  that  spiritual 
guide  that  was  to  bring  unity  and  oneiu-ss 
of  thought  in  the  truth,  we  have  a  thousand 
divisions,  all  widely  different,  and  yet,  nil 
professing  to  be  the  right  one. 

The  educated  Catholic  preaches  Cathoii-       ,/ 
cism. 

The  educated  Disciple  preaches  Camn- 
bellism. 

The  educated  Baptist  preaches  Calvin- 
ism. 

The  educated  Methodist  preaches  Armm- 
ianism  ;  and 

The  educated  Hebrew  preaches  Judaism. 

And  so  I  might  go  on  naming  the  entire 
thirty  minutes  ;  and  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  all  of  these  claim  to  be  the  children 
of  God,  and  all  expect  to  reach  the  highest 
seat  around  the  Lord's  table,  it  would  be  as 
great  a  miracle  as  the  moving  of  the  Kirt- 
land  hills  to  get  them  to  sit  down  in  peace 
and  unity  around  the  Lord's  table  here  in 
this  world.  Don't  flatter  yourselves,  my 
friends,  that  by  the  change,  called  death, 
all  of  these  barriers  are  broken  down  and 
you  will  meet  with  entire  different  feelings, 
and  tastes  on  the  other  side  ;  for  it  is  writ- 
ten :  "Whatsoever  a  man  soweth  that 
shall  he  also  reap  :  "  and  if  you  would  have 
the  Spirit  of  unity  and  love,  charity  that 
never  faileth  when  you  arrive  over  on  the 
other  side,  you  must  first  lay  hold  upon  it 
here.  This  comes  by  reason  of  the  "Com- 
forter, of  whom  Jesus  said,  I  will  send  you, 
if  I  go  away,  even  the  Spirit  of  Truth." 

Why,  says  my  opponent,  that  was  for  the 
apostles  ;  Yes,  and  for  all  men  who  desired 
the  truth.  He  takes  the  ground  that  peo- 
ple now  should  not  have  this  "Spirit  of 
Truth."  This  was  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  comforter  and  the  reverse  spirit 
to  this,  the  apostle  says,  "is  the  spirit  of 
error,"  1  John  4:6.  Then  when  I  contend 
that  this  "Spiritof  Truth,"  should  be  in  the 
church  and  it  after  the  pattern,  in  the  man- 
ner, that  God  set  it  in  the  church,  shall  I 
be  continually  met  with  the  "dodge"  that, 
this  Spirit,  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  comforter, 
was  to  the  apostles  just  after  the  time  of 
Jesus  only?  In  Jesus'  time  the  true  church 
was  known  by  means  of  the  presence  of  this 
life  power.  "But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
come  unto  you."  There  is  no  denying  the 
position  that  where  the  church  of  God,  or 
kingdom  of  God  is,  there  is  power;  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; — Paul  knew  this, 
and  be  therefore  asked  at  Ephesus  if  those 
who  claimed  to  have  been  baptized  by  John's 
baptism,  had  received  the  power.  "Have 
ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  be- 
lieved ?"  He  knew  just  how  to  tell  whether 
they  were  in  the  church,  or  kingdom  of 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


327 


dod,  or  not ;  for  in  that,  there  was  power. 
Hence,  ''have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost," 
been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost?  The 
difference  is  only  in  the  imagination  of  my 
opponent.  What  right  has  he  to  say  that 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  these  twelve 
men  at  Ephesus,  and  they  spake  with 
tongues  and  prophecied,"  that  they  were 
not  baptized  with  the  same,  since  he  admits 
the  baptism  of  the  household  of  Cornelius, 
and  the  record  reads  as  in  the  case  of  the 
baptism  at  Ephesus?  "The  Holy  Ghost 
fell  on  all  of  them  which  heard  the  word, 
and  they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues, 
and  magnify  God."  This  dividing  up  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  making  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  th«u  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  without  warrant  in  the 
Avord  of  God,  and  for  the  purpose  only  of 
maintaining  a  theory,  as  I  have  before 
shown  you.  But  it  is  claimed  that  people 
sre  better  off  without  this  Holy  Spirit  than 
the  early  Christians  were  with  it. 

Singular  asit  may  seem,  persons  claiming 
to  be  wise,  ministers  of  various  orders,  will 
undertake  to  make  this  claim. 

Can  they  not  see  that  they  take  sides  with 
the  class  of  whom  Jesus  spoke  who  taught 
that  their  way  was  better  than  that  which 
he  taught  them,  when  he  was  here,  when  he 
told  them  they  could  only  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit  represented  by  the  new  wine,  after 
divesting  themselves  of  their  old  religion. 
"No  man  also  having  drunk  old  wrine 
straightway  desireth  new,  for  he  saith, 
The  old  is  better,"  Luke  5:39.  And  so  it  is 
now  claimed,  that  men  are  better  off  and 
nearer  to  God,  than  though  they  received 
of  this  Holy  Spirit,  the  Comforter ;  the 
Spirit  of  Truth  ;  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  and 
testimony  of  Jesus,  as  he  says  :  "When  he 
is  come  he  will  testify  of  me."  If  this 
Spirit  is  with  anybody  then,  he*will  testify 
of  Jesus,  and  "herein  we  may  know  the 
Spirit  of  Truth  from  the  spirit  of  error." 
Hence  John  writing  to  his  little  chil- 
dren, as  he  calls  the  saints,  says:  "But 
ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and 
ye  know  all  things."  How  do  they  know 
all  things?  Answer,  by  that  "unction," 
(Spirit)  "from  the  Holy  One;"  for  Jesus 
had  said,  I  will  send  him  if  I  go  away,  and 
he  shall  bring  all  things  to  your  remem- 
brance," etc. 

Here,  as  given  in  the  account  in  John's 
letter,  we  find  these  believers  enjoying  the 
styne  spirit  after  all  of  the  apostles  had 
fallen  asleep,  except  John,  that  they  had 
had  from  the  first.  Again,  verse  27  :  "But 
the  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of 
him  [Christ]  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  need 
not  that  any  man  teach  you :  but  as  the 
same  anointing  teaches  you  of  all  things, 
and  is  truth  [the  Spirit  of  Truth]  and  is  no 
lie,  and  even'as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shall 
abide  in  him." 

As  it  hath  taught  you ;  not  the  written 
•word  hath  taught  you;  but  it,  the  spirit  of 
truth,  the  ''unction."  They  had  to  abide 
in  the  word  also,  for  if  they  did  not  do  this, 
they  could  not  have  this  unction  or  Holy 


Spirit  to  teach  them  ;  nor  could  they  abide 
in  the  word  without  it.  The  spirit  was 
with  its  other  walk,  to  bring  the  word,  "all 
things  Jesus  had  taught  him  to  their  remem- 
brance "  Hence,  Jesus  says:  "If  a  man 
love  me," — if  a  man,  (not  one  of  you  twelve 
or  seventy,) — "If a  man  lovemehe  will  keep 
my  words."  Is  that  all  ?  oh  no  ;  "He  that 
loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and 
I  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself 
unto  him." 

Unto  who,  the  twelve?  No,  he  that 
loveth  him  and  keepeth  his  commandments. 
John  14:21,  to  27. 

The  apostle  could  then  truly  say  of  his 
anointing,  2  Cor.  1:21  and  22:  "Now  he  which 
stablisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ  and  hath 
anointed  us  in  God  ;  who  hath  also  sealed 
us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  in 
our  hearts."  And  the  same  anointing  is 
that  which  Jesus  was  blessed  with.  Heb. 
1:9.  "Therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
thy  fellows." 

Now  I  call  your  attention  to  the  para- 
ble relating  to  the  dispensation  of  the 
gospel  in  the  "fullness  of  times,"  repre- 
sented under  the  head  of  hours  of  labor, 
including  all' the  dispensations,  or  the  call- 
ing of  men  into  the  ministry  from  the  time 
God  began  to  warn  and  instruct  the  people 
BO  far  as  the  record  informs  us.  And  in 
whatever  age  or  dispensation  a  man  labored 
he  received  the  penny  appointedt  and  so  of 
those  who  labored  in  the  eleventh  hour.  In 
the  presentation  of  this  work  Jesus  also 
showed  that  the  order  of  nations  in  this 
would  be  reversed  ;  that  there  Would  be 
brought  about  the  change  of  the  first  being 
last  and  the  last  first.  In  the  first  century  the 
gospel  was  presented  first  to  the  Jews,  and 
afterwards  was  to  go  from  them  to  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  but  in  the  "dispensation  of  the  full- 
ness of  times,"  the  presentation  is  to  be 
made  first  to  the  Gentiles,  and  then  to  the 
Jews.  Hence  the  language  of  the  apostle 
— Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down, 
"until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come 
in  ;"  then  the  time  of  rejoicing  of  the  Jews 
is  to  take  place;  and  of  Jesus  in  Math.  20:16: 
"So  the  last  shall  be  first,  and  the  first 
last."  The  standard,  then  preached  by 
him  to  the  Jews,  was  in  the  last  time  to  be 
lifted  up,  and  to  go  from  the  nations  termed 
Gentiles,  to  the  Jews.  The  prophet  Zecha- 
riah  naming  the  particular  way  in  which 
the  work  should  begin  that  would  result  iu 
the  restoration  of  Israel,  says:  "And  be- 
hold the  angel  that  talked  with  me  went 
forth  and  another  angel  wrent  out  to  meet 
him.  And  said  unto  him,  Run,  speak  to 
this  young  man,  saying,  Jerusalem  shall  be 
inhabited  as  towns  without  walls  for  the 
multitude  of  men  and  cattle  therein  ;  there* 
fore  I,  saith  the  Lord,  will  be  unto  her  a 
wall  of  fire  round  about,  and  will  be  the 
glory  in  the  midst  of  her."  Zech.  2:3,  5. 

Thus  we  have  the  full,  clear  and  complete 
establishment  of  the  work  as  outlined  in 
prophecy,  and  as  set  forth,  perfect  agree- 
ment and  harmony  in  the  work  itself  in  the 
fulfillment. 


828 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  BHADEN'S   THIRD    SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — My  opponent  tried  to  dodge 
the  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
It  will  avail  him  nothing.  It  does  repre- 
sent Christ  as  answering  the  astonishment 
of  Jared's  brother,  when  he  saw  his  finger, 
by  reminding  him  that  men  are  in  the  like- 
ness of  the  Father,  who  has  flesh  and 
blood  and  bones  as  they  have.  Smith,  and 
the  Church  in  his  day  accepted  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Pratts  as  standards,  and  uni- 
versally taught  them.  It  is  amusing  to  see 
the  dodges  of  my  opponent.  It  makes  no 
matter  who  uttered  a  teaching,  nor  how 
universal  it  may  be,  if  he  cannot  defend  it 
he  repudiates  it.  It  is  not  a  teaching  of  the 
Church.  It  is  a  very  convenient  method  of 
discussion.  He  repudiates  what  they  have 
published  as  revelations,  in  the  same  way. 
These  revelations  are  valuable  helps.  If 
the  revelation  suits  them,  they  accept  it. 
If  it  does  not,  they  reject  it.  That  is  as 
much  help  as  California  Hog  Scales.  Put 
the  hog  on  one  end  of  a  rail  laid  across  a 
log.  Balance  him  with  stones,  and  guess 
at  the  weight  of  the  stones.  So  Mormons 
balance  revelations  with  their  notions.  If 
they  agree,  they  accept.  If  not  they  reject. 
My  opponent  balances  his  revelations 
with  what  he  can  defend.  If  he  thinks  he 
can  defend  them,  they  are  revelations  the 
teachings  of  the  Church.  If  not,  he  rejects 
them.  Such  a  prophet  is  as  valuable  as  a 
fifth  wheel  to  a  wagon,  it  only  adds  to  the 
load,  and  they  throw  it  away  when  they 
can't  haul  it. 

I  did  not  say  that  the  language  I  quoted 
was  in  Joe's  inspired  translation,  and  my 
opponent  knew  that  I  did  not.  I  said  he 
made  such  comment  in  the  first  verse  of 
Genesis  in  the  King  Follett  sermon,  and  he 
knew  that  was  what  I  said.  But  anything, 
even  falsification  of  statements,  to  dodge. 
He  tells  me,  Joe  did  not  put  certain  things 
in  an  article  in  a  religious  enclyelopsedia. 
Jesuits  do  not  either.  They  conceal  part  of 
their  sentiments.  I  quoted  Smith's  declar- 
ations in  an  article  published  in  one  of  the 
church  papers — the  prophet's  special  teach- 
ing to  the  faithful.  But  the  present  head 
of  the  Church  has  repudiated  such  teach- 
ing. He  is  to  be  commended  for  his  good 
sense  ;  but  unregenerate  Gentiles  have  this 
trouble,  which  are  they  to  accept?  The 
positive  teaching  of  the  founder  and  great 
Seer  and  revelator  Joe  II.,  as  published  in 
Vol  VI.  "  Millenial  Star,"  or  the  utterances 
of  the  present  head,  Joe  III.?  When  you 
decide  which  is  head  and  which  is  the 
tail,  we  can  decide  which  way  the  snake  is 
going.  The  world  will  hold  them  to  what 
their  standards  have  published,  especially 
their  great  prophet,  seer,  revelator,  and 
founder  said,  and  especially  what  they 
have  published  of  his  utterances,  and  have 
accepted  and  taught  themselves,  until 


pressed  in  debate,  when  they  dishonestly 
try  to  evade  it.  He  dishonestly  says  that 
I  teach  that  God  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  men  now.  He  knew  that  was  false 
when  he  uttered  it.  I  believe  God  deals 
with  men  now  in  a  perfect  revelation,  in  a 
higher  and  more  perfect  manner  than  he 
did  in  partial  revelations.  Just  what  Paul 
teaches. 

I  called  on  him  to  prove  that  a  single 
revelation  or  miracle  had  ever  occurred  in 
Kirtland.  His  answer  is  amusing.  After 
assailing  my  Church,  because  we  have  no 
miracles  and  revelations,  and  boasting  that 
his  Church  is  the  Church,  because  it  has 
miracles  and  revelations,  all  officers  and 
most  of  the  members  having  such  power; 
when  called  on  to  produce  one,  just  one,  iu 
its  head  centre,  he  says  "  the  Gospel  is 
based  on  reason  and  not  on  miracles."  Just 
what  I  have  claimed,  just  what  our  people 
claim,  and  for  such  teaching  he  denounced 
us  as  apostates.  He  even  asserted  that  we 
do  not  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  because 
we  say  that  no  one  enjoys  his  miraculous 
influence ;  and  declared  that  there  was  but 
one  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that 
is  miraculous.  Christ  appealed  to  his  mira- 
cles when  upbraiding  Capernaum,  Chorazin 
and  Bethsaida.  He  said  to  unbelievers 
"  Believe  me  for  my  works."  He  wrought 
miracles  to  convince  men  and  to  prove  his 
claims.  Ho  healed  the  sick  in  Nazareth, 
and  ceased  only  when  they  refused  to 
believe,  and  it  was  no  longer  of  any  avail 
to  give  them  proof.  Will  my  opponent  do 
what  Christ  did?  Lay  his  hands  on  a  few 
sick  and  heal  them?  Will  he  do  as  Christ 
did,  recite  the  miracles  that  Mormons  have 
done  in  Kirtland?  You  denounce  our  peo- 
ple because  we  have  no  miracles  or  revela- 
tions. You  claim  to  be  the  Church,  because 
you  have  them.  We  defy  you  to  cite  one. 
Shut  up  for  shame  till  you  do. 

He  read  Joe  Smith's  yarn  about  his  first 
vision.  That  story  was  first  told  by  Smith 
in  1843,  when  he  was  38  years  old,  and  23 
years  after  he  says  he  had  the  vision.  His 
mother  and  his  father's  family  knew  nothing 
about  it  then.  His  mother  in  writing  his 
life  quotes  this  very  story,  as  he  wrote  it  23 
years  afterwards.  It  is  all  a  fabrication. 
No  ignorant  boy  of  fifteen,  scarcely  able' to 
read,  had  such  knowledge  of  all  the  pro- 
found theological  questions  of  the  day.  He 
did  not  reason  like  a  theologian  of  forty. 
Joe  fabricated  that  yarn  after  sixteen  years 
acquaintance  with  Rigdon.  He  got  the 
Campbellism  of  his  pretended  vision  from 
Rigdon.  It  is  a  lying  fabrication.  His  vis- 
ion is  a  lie,  for  he  says  he  saw  the  Father  in 
person.  No  mortal  ever  saw  him.  Human 
ears  have  heard  him  but  three  times.  His 
long  quotations  have  as  much  relevance  as 
quoting  the  multiplication  table.  He  sup- 
poses that  persons  are  silly  enough  to  think, 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


because  he  quotes  many  passages  he  is 
proving  his  proposition,  whether  they  have 
any  bearing  on  the  question  or  not  We 
are  agreed  that  a  falling  away  was  proph- 
ecied .  The  sole  issue  is7  What  does  a  res- 
toration include?  I  claim  a  return  to  the 
Bible,  as  our  sole  standard.  He  says  to  Joe 
Smith's  pretended  revelations,  to  the  pre- 
tended miraculous  power,  visions,  miracles, 
frauds  and  fallacies,  of  Mormon  knaves  and 
dupes.  I  claim  that  the  Bible  alone  is  the 
word  of  God.  He  adds  Mormon  frauds. 

I  object  to  his  church  that  it  flatly  contra- 
dicts the  Holy  Spirit  and  declares  there  are 
two  baptisms  in  the  church,  when  he  says 
there  is  but  one.  Will  my  opponent  answer 
these  queries.  I.  Does  not  John  declare 
"I  immerse  you  in  water,  but  Christ  will 
immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  II.  Does 
not  John  make  these  two  immersions  ?  III. 
Is  not  immersion  in  water  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  in  the  church?  IV.  Does  not  the 
Holy  Spirit  say  there  is  one  immersion  in 
the  church  ?  V.  Is  not  that  one  immer- 
sion— immersion  in  water,  for  the  remission 
of  sins.  VI.  If  immersion  in  water  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  is  in  the  church,  and 
there  is  but  one  immersion  in  the  church, 
can  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
John  declares  is  entirely  different  from  im- 
mersion in  water  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
be  in  the  church  ?  N  ow  answer  or  stop  that 
gabble  that  gives  the  lie  direct  to  the  spirit 
of  God.  He  appeals  to  Hebrews  vi.  Can 
not  he  see  that  his  perversion  of  that  pas- 
sage only  makes'  the  scriptures  contradict 
themselves,  and  fails  to  sustain  his  per- 
version. Now  it  is  a  fact  that,  I.  The 
Hebrew  letter  was  written  to  Hebrew 
Christians  who  esteemed  the  law  of  Moses 
above  the  Gospel.  II.  The  apostle  shows 
that  the  law  of  Moses  was  a  preparation  for 
the  Gospel,  the  schoolmaster  to  lead  to 
Christ.  III.  He  exhorts  them  to  abandon 
the  law  of  Moses  and  accept  the  Gospel 
alone.  IV.  He  exhorts  them  to  lay  to  one 
side  repentance  from  dead  works,  the  works 
of  a  dead  law,  teaching  concerning  immer- 
sions— the  immersions,  bathings,  washings 
of  the  law  of  Moses — the  different  immer- 
sions of  Heb.  9-10,  "carnal  ordinances, 
meats,  drinks,  and  different  immersions 
imposed  till  the  time  of  reformation,"  or 
until  the  Gospel  came.  The  immersions  of 
Hebrews,  6: 1,  and  the  different  immersions 
of  Hebrews,  9: 10,  on  the  same. 

Again  suppose  that  my  opponent  finds 
different  immersions  in  the  Bible,  it  does 
not  prove  that  there  is  more  than  one  im- 
mersion in  the  church.  The  Holy  Spirit 
says  there  is  but  one  in  the  church.  Can  he 
understand  that?  The  Bible  speaks,  I.  of 
one  immersion  in  water  for  remission  of  sins. 
My  opponent  admits  that  it  is  in  the  church. 
II.  Immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  III. 
Immersion  in  fire.  IV.  Immersions  in 
sufferings  endured  by  Christ.  V.  Immer- 
sion into  Moses.  VI.  Different  immersions 
of  the  law  of  Moses.  Are  all  these  in  the 
church?  They  must  be  if  in  the  Bible;  ac- 
cording to  my  opponent.  Why  does  he  not 
have  immersion  in  suffering— immersions 


into  Moses — in  the  different  immersions  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  in  the  church,  as  well  as 
the  immersion  in  the  Spirit?  1  Cor.  8:4, 
"For  though  there  are  those  that  are  called 
Gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth,  (as 
there  are  Lords  many  and  Gods  many)  to  ua 
there  is  but  one  God  the  Father."  If  my 
opponent  finds  a  score  of  immersions  in  the 
Bible,  to  us,  to  the  church,  the  Holy  Spirit 
says  there  is  but  one  baptism,  as  there  is 
but  one  God.  He  might  as  well  claim  sev- 
eral Gods,  as  several  immersions — several 
faiths — several  Lords — several  Holy  Spirits 
— several  hopes — several  bodies,  justas  well, 
as  claim  several  immersions.  To  us,  to  the 
church,  there  is  but  one  baptism,  as  there 
is  but  one  God — one  Lord— one  Holy  Spirit 
— one  faith — one  hope — one  body — one  im- 
mersion. 

Again,  if  the  one  baptism  be  immersion 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  two  of  the  items 
are  the  same, — the  one  Spirit  and  the  one 
immersion  in  the  Spirit  are  the  same.  Or 
we  have  the  one  Spirit  and  then  we  receive 
him  again  in  the  immersion  in  the  Spirit. 
The  obtuseness  or  perverseuess  of  my  oppo- 
nent is  to  be  pitied.  He  cannot  see  the 
difference  between  immersion  by  one  Spirit 
and  immersion  in  the  Spirit — the  difference 
between  in  and  by.  The  difference  between 
born  of  the  Spirit  and  immersion  in  the 
Spirit;  the  difference  between  in  and  of — 
the  difference  between  immersion  in  the 
Spirit,  and  the  renewal  of  the  Spirit — the 
difference  between  in  and  of.  Until  he  can 
see  that  by  is  not  in,  in  is  not  of,  he  had 
better  stop  debating,  and  study  a  dictionary 
for  several  years,  for  it  would  take  that 
long  for  him  to  understand  what  any 
schoolboy  knoVs.  Now  then  let  our  oppo- 
nent stop  this  gabble  about  two  baptisms 
which  gives  the  lie  direct  to  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

To  his  long  string  of  irrelevant  prophecies 
we  object :  I.  His  application  of  them  to  Joe 
Smith  and  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  mere 
inference.  Jf  we  were  to  insert  the  infer- 
ence it  would  make  the  prophecies  sound 
ridiculous.  IT.  The  context  limits  several 
to  the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  captivity. 
Isaiah  xi,  16,  "And  there  shall  be  a 
highway  for  the  remnant  of  the  people 
which  shall  be  from  Assyria."  What  bal- 
derdash to  apply  this  to  Joe  Smith  and 
Mormonism.  Isaiah  is  merely  poetic  hyper- 
bole, describing  the  return  of  the  Israelites 
from  Assyrian  captivity.  One  of  the  egre- 
g'rious  blunders  of  those  who  run  crazy  over 
Hebrew  prophecies  is  that  they  take  what 
these  prophets  said  of  their  nation,  and 
they  rarely  prophecied  of  anything  else, 
and  carry  it  over  into  modern  history,  of 
which  the  prophets  never  dreamed.  Men 
find  railroads,  telegraphs,  telephones,  gas 
lights,  electric  lights,  in  Hebrew  prophecies. 
They  find  that  the  English  people  are 
descendants  of  Israelites,  the  Indians  are, 
that  the  United  States  is  prophecied  of, 
that  Louis  Napoleon  was  foretold,  Bismarck, 
the  Fox  girls,  and  Joe  Smith.  I  confess 
that  I  have  such  a  disgust  for  such  vagaries 
that  I  have  no  patience  to  notice  them.' 


830 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Jeremiah  xvi  refers  to  the  Assyrian  cap- 
tivity and  return  from  it.  So  also  EzeUiel. 
xx.  Even  if  it  did  not,  it  could  be  applied 
to  the  Fox  girls  and  Spiritism,  as  well  as  to 
Joe  Smith  and  Mormonism.  Such  vagaries 
backed  up  by  irrelevant  quotations  and 
misapplication  of  prophecies  are  to  prove 
that  Mormonism  is  the  church  of  God. 

We  will  now  continue  our  examination  of 
the  pretended  revelations  of  Mormonism. 
All  inspiration  should  be  harmonious  and 
agree  with  itself.  If  Joe  Smith  was  in- 
spired when  he  translated  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  and  when  he  made  the  Inspired 
translation,  these  two  products  of  inspira- 
tion should  agree.  If  Joe  was  inspired 
when  he  gave  the  revelations  in  the  Book 
of  Doctrines  and  Covenants,  and  when  he 
made  the  Inspired  Translation,  these  two 
products  of  inspiration  should  agree.  In 
the  Book  of  Mormon  there  are  hundreds  of 
quotations  from  the  New  Testament ;  hun- 
dreds from  the  Old  Testament.  In  his 
Inspired  Translation  Joe  has  changed  these 
passages,  in  scores  of  instances.  If  he  was 
inspired  in  his  translation,  King  James7 
version  is  wrong  in  all  of  these  instances. 
Yet  strange  to  say  the  Book  of  Mormon 
follows  King  James'  version,  quotes  the 
erroneous  language  in  our  version  in  every 
instance.  How  did  the  Nephites,  who 
quoted  by  inspiration  from  old  Hebrew 
writings,  happen  to  quote  the  errors  of 
King  James'  version,  that  was  not  in  exis- 
tence till  hundreds  of  years  after  their  day  ? 
Will  Kelley  explain  this  to  this  to  us?  Did 
Sydney  Rigdon  quote  from  our  version 
when  he  wrote  the  Book  of  Mormon?  Or 
did  the  Nephites  who  quoted  by  inspiration, 
quote  our  version  hundreds  of.  years  before 
it  was  made,  instead  of  from  the  correct 
text  ?  Our  version  is  wrong  if  the  Inspired 
Translation  is  right. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  declares  that  Jesus 
after  his  ascension  visited  theNephites,  and 
repeated  to  them  nearly  all  of  his  sermon 
on  the  mount.  Jesus  says  to  them:  "Be- 
hold ye  have  heard  the  things  which  I 
taught  before  I  ascended  to  my  Father." 
In  his  sermon  to  the  Nephites  he  repeats 
what  he  had  said  before  his  ascension,  just 
as  it  is  in  our  version  and  different  from  the 
Inspired  Translation  in  over  thirty  instances 
of  marked  differences  between  our  version 
and  the  Inspired  Translation.  Did  Rigdon 
copy  from  our  version  in  writing  the  Book 
of  Mormon?  Or  did  Jesus,  in  his  conversa- 
tion with  the  Nephites,  quote  from  our  ver- 
sion endorsing  its  errors,  hundreds  of  years 
before  it  was  made?  Or  did  Christ  use  the 
correct  utterance,  and  the  Nephites  quote 
from  our  version  its  errors,  hundreds  of 
years  before  it  was  made,  instead  of  quoting 
the  language  Christ  did  use?  Or  is  our 
version  right  and  Joe  wrong  in  his  Inspired 
Translation.  As  an  illustration,  the  Book  of 
Mormon  says  that  Jesus  said,  "Then  I  will 
profess  unto  them  I  never  knew  you,  depart 
from  me  ye  that  work  iniquity."  The  In- 
spired Translation  says  that  he  said,  "Then 
I  will  say  unto  them  ye  never  knew  me, 
.depart  from  me  ye  that  work  iniquity." 


Which  inspiration  is  correct?  Will  Kelley 
straighten  out  this  contradiction.  In  like 
manner  in  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cov- 
enants revelations  agree  with  our  version 
and  contradict  Joe's  Inspired  Translation 
in  many  instances. 

Again  Joe's  Inspired  Translation  contra- 
dicts itself.  Genesis  ii :  5-9  and  vi :  5.  Joo 
interpolates  his  dogma  on  pre-existence  of 
souls.  He  makes  God  declare  that  ho 
created  the  Spirits  of  men  in  heaven,  before 
he  created  their  bodies  on  earth,  and  beforo 
any  human  body  existed.  In  I  Cor.  xv  : 
44-49  he  translates  the  language  so  that  it 
declares  that  the  first  man  instead  of  being 
merely  spiritual  first,  was  first  of  the  earth, 
"that  which  is  natural,  is  first,  that  which 
is  spiritual  last."  The  Inspired  Trans- 
lation says,  Math.iv:  Jacob  begat  Joseph 
the  husband  of  Mary.  Luke  iii :  30  declares- 
Jeseph  was  from  the  loins  of  Heli.  Hence 
he  had  two  natural  fathers.  The  original 
declares  that  Joseph  was  the  son  of  Helir 
that  is  by  marriage.  The  inspired  Trans- 
lation contradicts  itself  in  regard  to  creation. 
It  declares  that  when  man  was  created  there- 
was  no  flesh  on  the  earth,  water  or  air,  an<t 
that  man  was  the  first  flesh  on  the  earth. 
Gen.  ii:  6-8.  In  the  first  chapter  we  have- 
fishes,  fowls  and  all  animals  created  before 
man  was  created.  The  words  Joe  inter- 
polates into  the  second  chapter  flatly  con- 
tradict the  first  chapter.  We  have  thus- 
proved  that  Joe's  inspiration  in  the  Inspired 
Translation  flatly  contradicts  his  inspira- 
tion in  the  Book  of  Mormon',  in  the  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants,  and  contradicts 
itself.  Had  we  the  Book  of  Commandments 
to  compare  with  the  revision  of  its  revela- 
tions and  inspiration  in  the  Book  of  Doc- 
trines and  Covenants,  we  could  show  that 
hundreds  of  corrections  have  been  made, 
that  the  Mormon  God  has  revised  himself 
in  hundreds  of  instances. 

We  will  now  attack  the  very  corner  stone 
of  I.lormonism,  the  ordination  of  Oliver  Cow- 
dery  and  Joe  Smith.  Itisdescribed  by  Smith: 

"We  on  a  certain  day  went  into  the  woods  t*>  pray, 
and  inquire  of  the  Lord  respecting  baptism  fur 
the  remission  of  sins  as  we  found  mention  in  the- 
translation  of  the  plates.  While  we  were  thus  em- 
ployed praying  and  calling  upon  the  Lord  a  messL'nger 
from  heaven  descended  in  a  cloud  of  light,  and  having 
laid  his  hands  upon  us  he  ordained  us  sayin?,  'Lpotv 
you  my  fellow  servants  in  the  name  of  the  Messiah  I 
confer  the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  which  holds  the  keys 
of  the  ministering  of  angels,  and  of  the  Gospel  of  repen- 
tance and  of  baptism  of  immersion  for  the  remission  of 
sins;  and  this  shall  never  be  taken  again  from  the 
earth,  until  the  sous  of  Levi  do  offer  again  an  offering 
unto  the  Lord  in  righteousness.'  He  said  that  this. 
Aaronic  priesthood  had  not  the  power  of  laying  on  of 
hands  for  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  that  this  shouM 
be  conferred  on  us  hereafter.  And  he  commanded  u* 
to  go  and  be  baptized,  and  gave  us  directions  that  I 
should  baptize  Oliver  Cowdery,  and  that  afienvanl* 
he  should  baptize  me  Accordingly  we  went  and  were 
baptized.  I  baptized  him  first  and  afterwards  he  bap- 
'ti'ed  me.  After  that  I  laid  my  hands  on  his  head  and 
ordained  him  to  the  Aaronic  piiesthood;  and  after- 
wards he  laid  his  hands  upon  me  and  ordained  me  to 
the  some  priesthood,  as  we  were  commanded.  The- 
messenger  who  visited  us  upon  this  occasion  and  con- 
ferred this  priesthood  upon  us  said  that  his  name  was 
John  the  same  thnt  is  called  John  the  Baptist  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  he  acted  under  the  directions 
of  Peter,  James  and  John  who  held  the  keys  of  the 
priesthood  of  Melchezedek  which  priesthood  he  said! 
should  in  due  time  be  conferred  ui>on  us,  and  I  should 
be  the  first  Elder  and  he  the  second." 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


831 


Joe  and  Oliver  were  divinely  inspired 
men  engaged  in  the  translation.  They  had 
the  miraculous  influence  of  the  Spirit,  the 
baptism  in  the  Spirit  according  to  my  oppo- 
nent, yet  they  had  not  been  baptized  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  and  were  not  par- 
doned. The  miraculous  influence  of  the 
Spirit'does  not  confer  pardon.  It  is  not  the 
birth  of  the  Spirit,  if  Joe's  story  be  true. 
Will  my  opponent  fix  this  up  ?  Either  Joe 
lied  when  he  said  he  had  this  miraculous 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  or  it  had  not  confer- 
red on  him  remission  of  sins.  It  was  not 
the  birth  of  the  Spirit.  Again,  as  baptism 
is  immersion  the  angel  talked  the  nonsense 
of  "immersion  by  immersion."  The  angel 
says  the  sons  of  Levi  are  to  make  offering 
unto  the  Lord.  That  will  repudiate  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  set  to  one  side  the  anti- 
type and  introduce  the  shadow.  Thatangel 
needed  to  be  told  that  Jesus  offered  him- 
self once  for  all,  and  abolished  all  sacri- 
fices of  the  sons  of  Levi.  "There  remains 
no  more  offering  for  sin."  That  angel  or- 
dains Joe  and  Oliver  to  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood, and  then  repudiates  his  own  act  and 
tells  them  to  ordain  each  ocher.  If  his  ordi- 
nation was  valid,  why  tell  them  to  ordain 
each  other?  If  it  was  not,  why  the  farce 
of  conferring  it?  Why  not  tell  them  to  or- 
dain each  other  at  first?  That  angel  needed 
to  be  told  many  things. 

I.  The  Aaronic  priesthood  never  was  in 
the  church  of  Christ.    It   belonged  to  the 
dispensation  of  the  law  of   Moses,  which 
was    changed    "for  the   priesthood    being 
changed   (from  the  priesthood  of  Aaron), 
there  is   made  of  necessity  a  change  also 
of  the  law."    The  Aaronic  priesthood   was 
superseded  by  the  Melchezedek  priesthood 
of  Christ. 

II.  Christ  was  never  an  Aarpnio  priest 
and  he  has  ordained  no  such  priests  in  his 
church.     "Our  Lord  sprang  from  the  tribe 
of  Judah  of  which  Moses  spake  nothing  con- 
cerning the  priesthood." 

III.  There  is  not  a  word  about  the  Aaro- 
nic priesthood  in  the  church  of  Christ.     It 
is  a  Mormon  fiction. 

IV.  The  angel,  was  John  the  Baptist,  the 
last  who    held   the    keys  of   the    Aaronic 
priesthood.    John  died  early  in  our  Lord's 
ministry.    He  died  under  the  law  of  Moses. 
He  never  ordained  a  priest  in  the  church. 
There  was  no  Aaronic  priest  from  John  till 
Joe  and  Oliver.     According  to  this  Christ 
had  not  properly  organized  his  church  and 
John  had  to  correct  his  omission  by  ordain- 
ing Joe  and  Oliver  in  1829. 

V.  If  John  had  been  a  priest,  death  would 


have  cutoff  his  priesthood.  Aaron  io  priests 
were  not  suffered  to  continue  by  reason  of 
death.  Hebrews  vii,  22. 

VII.  WTas  John  resurrected  to  ordain  Joe? 
If  so,  how  did  resurrection  restore  to  John 
his  priesthood  ? 

VIII.  If  John  was  not  resurrected  death 
had  cut  of  his  priesthood,  and  his  spirit 
could  not  confer  what  it  had  lost. 

IX.  John  claims    to   have  been    sent  by 
Peter,  James  and  John.   Why  not  by  Christ. 
Christ  himself  shed  forth    what  laid    the 
foundation  of  the  church  at  Pentecost. 

X.  John  says  that  Peter,  James  and  John 
held  the  keys  to  the  Melchezedek  priest- 
hood.   An  utter  untruth,  the  Melchezedek 
priesthood  belongs  to  Christ  alone;  and  he 
has  no   successor.    Heb.  vi.   15-17.    There 
arises  another    Priest   after    the  order    of 
Melchezedek. 

XI.  Christ  did  not  officiate  as  priest   of 
any  order  while  on  earth.      He  began  his 
Melchezedek  priesthood  after  his  ascension. 
Hebrews  viii. :  4.     "  If  Christ  were  on  earth 
he  would  not  be  a  priest."    So  he  did  not 
begin  his  priesthood  on  earth.   Christ  chose 
and  ordained  apostles  ;  John  xv:  16.     But 
he  did  not  ordain  Aaronic  priests,  for   but 
one  of  his  disciples  was  a  Levite.    Hecould 
not  ordain  them  Melchezedek  priests  before 
the  law  was  changed,  and  before  himself, 
the  first  priest  of  that  order. 

XII.  Christ  is  a  priest  forever  after  the 
order  of  Melchezedek.     He   can    have  no 
successor. 

XIII.  The  priesthood  under  the  gospel 
belongs  to  all  Christians.     1  Peter,  ii:  5:6; 
Also  Revelations  i :  2. 

These  objections  overturn  the  corner 
stone  of  Mormonism.  The  lie  that  Joe 
fabricated  to  have  a  divine  commission,  for 
his  pretense  to  hold  the  keys  of  the  Aaronic 
and  Melchezedek  priesthoods.  It  is  aa 
baseless  as  the  fabric  of  a  dream.  Mormon- 
ism  claims  that  there  is  but  one  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit, — the  Holy  Spirit  in  miraculous 
powers.  Joe  said  that  the  Melchezedek 
priesthood  alone  can  confer  that.  So  tho 
angel  told  them.  The  Melchezedek  priest- 
hood was  not  in  existence,  and  of  course 
the  miraculous  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  that  Priesthood  alone  can  confer, 
was  not  in  existence.  Joe  and  Oliver  had 
not  received  the  priesthood  nor  the  power 
it  alone  can  confer.  Yet  Joe  had  received 
an  inspiration  to  translate;  so  had  Oliver. 
And  they  prophesied  on  this  occasion,  before 
the  priesthood  which  could  confer  such 
power  was  in  existence. 

(Time  called). 


832 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  FOURTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :—  The  Book  of  Abraham  has 
become  a  terror  to  my  opponent  all  at  once. 
Well,  is  that  the  question  under  discussion  ? 
Is  it  in  any  respect  connected  with  it  ?  No. 
What  has  the  question  of  whether  Joseph 
Smith  translated  the  Book  of  Abraham  or 
not,  to  do  in  deciding-  as  to  whether  the 
Latter  Day  Saints  have,  and  abide  in  the 
gospel  of  Christ? 

IF,  as  a  people,  we  are  sowing  the  good 
seed  or  doctrine  of  the  kingdom,  and  have 
the  gospel  preached  by  Jesus  and  the  apos- 
tles restored,  it  will  make  no  difference 
whether  Joseph  Smith  did  something  else 
correct  or  not. 

Did  he  do  this  work  of  restoring  the 
gospel  and  church  correctly?  that  is  the 
question.  And  it  is  easy  to  see  that  he 
may  have  done  this  and  yet  failed  in  some 
other  work  if  he  was  not  called  to  do  that  ; 
and  again  it  is  just  possible  and  very  prob- 
able, he  did  both  right. 

So  far  as  the  translation  of  the  Book  of 
Abraham,  no  called,  is  concerned,  I  have 
examined  the  purported  translation  of  T. 
Deveria  as  published  and  it  shows  upon 
its  face  and  the  way  that  it  is  gotten  up, 
that  it  is  a  humbug,  whatever  be  that  made 
by  Joseph  Smith.  M.  Deveria  was  not  a 

freat  savant,  as  has  been  claimed  for  him, 
ut  a  young  Frenchman  who  had  made  no 
stir  in  the  world  on  account  of  ability  of 
any  kind  and  none  since.  He  only  had  a 
copy  of  this  papyrus  and  how  genuine, 
neither  he  nor  the  parties  who  delivered 
him  the  copy,  knew,  and  taking  his  pur- 
ported translation  (I  say  this,  for  he  did 
not  claim  to  be  able  to  translate  it  in  full) 
and  compare  with  that  of  Mr.  Smith  and 
any  intelligent  man  cau  soon  see  that  even 
Deveria's  work  confirms  the  fact  that  Smith 
knew  something  about  the  papyri.  The 
work  of  Joseph  Smith  will  stand  the  test  of 
all  such  jobs  as  men  of  that  class  can  put 
up  on  him.  But  the  Book  of  Abraham 
forms  no  part  of  our  faith  and  never  did, 
and  I  therefore  leave  it  with  the  "young 


My  opponent  thinks  I  misapply  the  pro- 
phecy in  Isaiah  11  :  12  and  13.  If  he  really 
thinks  so  why  does  he  not  take  a  stand 
here  and  show  how  it  is  misapplied.  He 
overturns  more  than  simply  my  argument 
if  he  can  show  this  has  been  fulfilled. 
When  the  angel  visited  Joseph  Smith  when 
he  was  a  boy  as  I  read  to  you,  it  is  said  he 
quoted  this  language  of  Isaiah  and  stated 
it  had  not  had  a  fulfillment  but  soon  would. 
If  Braden  can  overturn  that  statement,  he 
has  made  a  point.  Let  him  do  his  worst 
now.  The  events  spoken  of  I  claim  have 
never  taken  place  at  any  time.  Itmustyet 
be  accomplished.  Judah  has  never  been 
gathered  since  the  dispersion  and  when 
this  is  fulfilled  it  is  to  be  by  bringing  them 


from  "the  four  corners  of  the  earth"— the 
extremities  of  the  earth.  Then  shall  the  ad- 
versaries of  Judah  be  cut  off' and  Ephraim 
and  Judah  dwell  together  in  peace.  Two 
things  which  have  never  been  since  long 
before  the  Ephraimites  were,  with  tn? 
other  tribes,  taken  captive  first,  by  tho 
King  of  Assyria.  I  showed  you  fully  from 
the  Bible  upon  the  first  question  tha,, 
Ephraim  had  not  existed  as  a  nation  nor 
been  known  since  they  were  cast  out  with 
the  tribes,  nor  would  not  be  until  one  should 
stand  up  as  of  old  with  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  to  make  his  seed  known  among 
the  people.  Hence,  this  prophecy  could 
not  have  taken  place.  But  the  following 
verses  are  sufficient  upon  this: 

"And  the  Lord  shall  utterly  destroy  the  tongue  of 
the  Egyptian  sea;  and  with  his  mighty  wind  shall  he 
shake  his  hand  over  the  river,  and  shall  smite  it  ir:  the 
seven  streams,  and  make  men  go  over  dry  shod." 

"And  there  shall  be  a  highway  for  the  remnant  of 
his  people,  whi<  h  shall  be  left,  from  Assyria;    like 
it  was  to  Israel  in  the  day  that  he  came  up  out  of 
land  of  Egypt." 

This  has  never  been  accomplished  in  any 
sense  neither  in  a  miraculous,  as  predicted, 
manner,  nor  in  any  way  so  far  as  the  cross- 
ing of  the  sea  ,or  destruction  of  the  nation 
who  shall  abide  there,  nor  in  the  general 
return  of  Judah  and  Israel. 

He  thinks  he  has  found  a  contradiction  in 
what  is  termed  the  Inspired  Translation  of 
the  Scriptures,  because  in  Genesis  it  says 
man  was  created  spiritual  first,  whereas  in 
1  Cor.  15 :47,  it  says  the  first  man  was  of  the 
earth,  earthy. 

In  Genesis,  the  Lord  is  represented  as 
giving  an  account  of  the  creation  of  man. 
His  organization;  and  shows  it  was  first* 
spiritual,  then  natural.  In  Corinthians 
Paul  is  contrasting  the  position  of  Adam 
with  that  of  Christ.  Try  again,  Mr.  Braden, 
you  may  strike  something  yet  before  the 
close  of  the  debate. 

Again  the  objection  comes  up  that  the 
Book  of  Mormon  follows  the  errors  in  King 
James'  translation,  while  the  quotations  in 
it  an  d  the  Inspired  ought  to  agree.  I  burst- 
ed  his  bauble  in  my  18th  and  19th  speeches 
on  the  first  proposition  as  to  the  errors  and 
idioms  in  King  James'  translation  being 
copied  in  the  Book  of  Mormon .  Now  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  translation  of  the  Bible 
should  agree  in  the  wording  in  order  for 
both  to  be  correct.  They  are  translated 
from  different  writings  and  writers,  who 
penned  the  words  at  different  times,  and  it 
ought  not  to  be  claimed  that  they  should 
have  got  the  exact  word  every  time.  You 
just  as  well  claim  that  where  Mark  and 
Luke  or  Matthew  and  John  differ  in  their 
wording  of  what  Jesus  said  on  an  occasion, 
one  of  them  is  wrong.  It  will  not  follow 
that  either  is  wrong,  and  to  be  discarded 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  it  contains  some 
false  sentiment  or  doctrine.  It  would  be  a 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


333 


fact  that  It  would  look  a  little  suspicious 
did  the  Inspired  Translation  and  Book  of 
Mormon  agree  every  time  in  wording, 
although  translated  from  originals  written 
by  different  persons,  as  they  were.  Try 
again  for  av.ilid  objection. 

Again,  he  takes  up  1  Cor.  12:13,  but  soon 
to  drop  it,  and  says  now  that  I  can't  distin- 
guish between  being  baptized  in  the  Spirit, 
or  in  the  language  of  the  Spirit,  or  by  the 
Spirit.  He  said  "by  the  command  of  the 
Spirit,"  before  when  commenting  upon  this. 
But  my  comment  has  induced  him  to 
change  the  form  again.  Suppose  we  let  it 
readjust  as  it  is  in  the  Bible.  It  so  suits 
me,  and  should  all.  ''For  by  one  Spirit  are 
we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we 
be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free  ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink 
into  one  Spirit. 

Comment  is  useless.  My  opponent  may 
try  to  figure  around  this  all  day,  and  at 
night  his  work  will  be  knocked  all  into  pi 
by  simply  reading  aloud  the  text. 

There  is  a  baptism  of  the  water  and  of 
the  Spirit.  Those  on  Pentecost  were  bap- 
tized by  the  Spirit,  and  they  had  before 
been  baptized  in  water.  Paul  was  baptized 
in  water,  and  received  also  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit.  This  I  have  shown  and  much 
more  on  this  point,  however.  Paul  in  this 
language  in  1  Cor.  12:13,  gives  the  Saints 
to  whom  he  is  writing  to  understand  that 
not  only  he,  but  all  were  baptized  by  this 
Spirit.  So  I  believe.  The  reference  in  Eph. 
4:5  I  showed  could  not  mean  there  was  no 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  for  that  would  con- 
tradict Jesus,  Peter,  Paul,  John  the  Apos- 
tle and  John  the  Baptist.  It  refers  to  the 
complete  birth  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  the 
church  of  Christ,  the  "washing  of  re- 
generation and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost" 
— "the  baptism  into  Christ  and  putting  on 
Christ,"  or  the  burial  in  the  liquid  wave 
and  the  clothing  upon  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Paul  says  in  the  Hebrew  letter,  "baptisms" 
in  the  plural,  speaking  of  it  also  as  one  of 
the  first  or  foundation  principles  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ. 

There  has  as  yet  been  no  claim  made  that 
the  doctrine  and  faith  of  the  church  differs 
in  any  regard  to  that  taught  in  the  New 
Testament,  aside  from  baptisms,  which  we 
use  as  Paul  did  in  the  plural.  My  opponent 
has  been  content  so  far  in  rehearsing  the 
various  tales  about  some  of  the  men  who 
first  were  called  to  this  work,  and  with 
making  objections  to  the  form  of  the  church 
organization  as  not  being  identified  with  the 
New  Testament  church. 

Strange,  too,  that  a  person  who  is  in  an 
organization  that  does  not  pretend,  under 
any  circumstances,  to  have  more  than  two 
officers,  as  contained  in  the  New  Testament 
church,  and  even  these  two  are  entirely 
different  in  their  work  and  spiritual  endow- 
ments to  those  of  the  early  church,  should 
attempt  to  criticise  another  body  of  people 
on  the  ground  that  he  thinks  one  or  two  of 
their  officers  are  not  just  according  to  those 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  I  a  hall  patiently  compare  the  organi- 


zation of  the  church  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  ascertain  what,  if  any,  differences 
there  are.  In  the  New  Testament  the  order 
is  set  forth  as  follows :  "Apostles,"  "Proph- 
et*," "Evangelists  or  Seventy"  (Luke  10 
and  Eph.  4:11),  "Pastors"  [shepherds  or 
priests],  "Teachers,"  "Helps"  [helpers  or 
assistants],  "Governments"  [directors]. 
"Miracles"  [powers],  "Gifts  of  Healing" 
[gifts  of  cures],  "Diversities  of  Tongues" 
[different  languages].  See  Matthew  10:1,  5; 
Luke  6:13  to  16,  and  10:1.  Horn.  12:4  to  9. 
1  Cor.  12:28  and  29,  and  Eph.  4:11 .  Are  these 
all  the  officers  that  were  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment church?  No,  there  were  a  number  of 
others.  Turn  to  Phil.  1 : 1.  and  we  read : 

"Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ, 
to  all  the  Saints  in  Chrisi  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi, 
with  the  bishops  and  deacons.  If  a  man  desire  the 
office  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work.  A  bishop, 
then,  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  vig- 
ilant, sober,  of  good  behavior,  given  to  hospitHlity,  apt 
to  teach.  Not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of 
filthy  lucre;  but  patient,  not  a  brawler,  nor  covetous; 
one  that  ruleth  well  in  his  own  house,  having  his  chil- 
dren in  subjection  with  all  gravity  (for  if  a  man 
know  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house  how  shall  he  take 
care  of  the  church  of  God?)"  1  Tim.  3:1  to  5,  and  12 
and  13. 

These  fully  set  forth  the  fact  that  there 
were  the  offices  of  bishop  and  deacon  in  the 
church,  besides  those  before  named.  And 
upon  this  I  have  quoted  fully  to  show  the 
character  of  the  office  of  bishop.  That  it 
was  one  in  which  he  has  to  deal  with  the 
temporal  interests  of  the  church  as  well  as 
the  spiritual.  He  therefore  is  not  to  be  a 
covetous  or  greedy  man.  In  his  department 
as  to  the  temporal  interests,  as  chief  bishop, 
he  has  also  supervisory  control  over  the 
church,  hence  the  expression,  "How  shall 
he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God?" 

The  writing  is  also  clear  that  provision 
was  not  only  made  for  one,  but  assisting 
bishops  to  him ;  hence,  "  helps,"  assistants, 
are  provided  for  in  the  business  and  order 
of  the  Temporal  department  in  the  church 
as  well  as  in  the  Spiritual.  Also  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  6:5,  it  is  said:  —  "They 
choose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus, 
°"H  Nicanor,  and  Timon,  and  Parnenas, 


and 


and  Nicolas  a  proselyte  of  Antioch  : 

"  Whom  they  set  before  the  apostles ; 
and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their 
hands  on  them." 

Here  is  the  history  of  the  setting  apart 
of  seven  men  to  act  in  a  certain  position 
which  it  seems  had  not  been  supplied  up  to 
this  time.  What  the  particular  office  was 
we  are  not  told  in  the  narrative  any  more 
than  we  are  told  in  the  13th  of  Acts,  what 
particular  office  Barnabas  and  Saul  were 
set  apart  to  fill  as  laborers  in  God's  work. 
Philip  is  referred  to  afterwards  as  an  evan- 
gelist, but  just  what  the  duties  of  that 
office  were,  is  not  fully  set  out.  The  best 
authority  upon  this,  is  that  it  was  a  special 
work  to  which  certain  ones  were  called 
who  held  a  high  office  in  the  church.  Doc- 
tor Smith,  in  his  Theological  Dictionary, 
refers  to  the  office  to  which  these  seven 
wise  men  were  set  apart, as  being  evidently  a 
high  and  responsible  one  in  the  church,  bujr 
which  does  not  seem  to  be  named  anywhere. 


834 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


It  was  not  that  of  deacon,  lie  concludes. 
And  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  these  men 
were  bishops,  or  high  priests  instructed  to 
act  in  that  position,  and  especially  are  we 
warranted  in  taking  this  view  since  some 
of  the  special  work  pointed  out  for  these 
men  to  do,  is  the  same  as  that  connected 
with  the  bishop's  duties  hi  1  Tim.  3rd 
chapter. 

Again,  it  is  thought  to  be  the  order  in  the 
Betting  apart  of  evangelists  under  the  New 
Testament,  to  select  them  from  among  the 
High  Priests,  on  account  of  the  very  station 
of  these  officers,  who  should  have  attained 
the  eminent  position  as  had,  it  is  clear,  these 
seven  men  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  by  reason  of  being  men: — "Of 
honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
wisdom." 

The  Priesthood  'was  in  the  church  at 
that  time  it  is  certain,  and  the  office  of 
High  Priest  is  connected  in  this  line  of 
Authority.  Christ  it  is  said  was  made  "  an 
High  Priest,"  Heb:  5:10;  and  he  certainly 
would  not  have  been  called  to  any  office 
not  in  the  church.  Remember  it  does  not 
say  the  High  Priest,  as  though  there  were 
to  be  but  one,  and  this  one  the  last,  but: 
"an  High  Priest."  He  is  also  called,  "the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest,"  Heb.  3:1.  But 
he  was  not  the  last  and  only  apostle,  but 
held  that  office  in  the  church,  which  evi- 
dently was  the  highest  office  in  the  church. 
J'aul  makes  it  precede  that  of  High  Priest 
in  the  language  quoted:  "And  God  hath 
set  some  [gifts]  in  the  church  first  Apostles." 
It  is  a  fixed  fact;  and  those  who  wish  to 
make  Jesus  the  last  High  Priest,  because 
they  think  that  was  the  highest  office  in 
the  church,  and  he  having  held  it,  therefore 
he  will  continue  to  act  in  that,  and  no  one 
else  can,  make  a  mistake.  He  held  and 
acted  in  the  office  of  High  Priest  as  he  did 
also  in  that  of  other  offices,  because  it  was 
an  office  in  the  church,  as  the  office  of  an 
Apostle  was  also  in  the  church,  and  he 
acted  in  that,  and  was  not  only  an  Apostle 
.and  Priest  and  an  Elder  here,  but  after  his 
ascension  still  an  Apostle  and  Priest  and 
Elder,  and  must  continue  such  forever. 
But  this  does  not  cut  off  the  offices,  or  take 
them  out  of  the  church,  for  Peter  and 
James  acted  as  Apostles  here,  while  the 
Apostle  (Jesus)  was  in  the  heavens.  But 
these  are  not  the  only  officers  as  Peter 
says : — 

"The  elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am 
also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  df 
Christ,  nnd  also  a  partakerof  thatglory  to  be  revealed. 

"  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking 
the  oversight  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  willingly; 
jiot  foi-  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind.  Neither  as 
being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  being  ensamples 
to  the  flock. 

"And  when  the  chief  Shepherd  shall  appear,  ye 
shall  receive  a  crown  of  glory  that  ladeth  not  away." 
1  Peter,  5:1  to  4. 

What  officers  have  we  now  set  forth  in 
the  New  Testament  as  existing  in  the 
church  under  the  apostles? 

I  will  enumerate:^ Apostles,  Prophets, 
Seventy,  (Evangelists,)  High  Priests,  Bis- 
hops, Elders,  Teachers  and  Deacons.  These 
lesser  officers  evidently  are  also  among:  the 


"helps,  governments,"  &c.,  and  as  such, 
they  are  qualified  to  act  by  the  authority 
of  the  lesser  or  helping  priesthood.  The 
authority  of  the  priest,  teacher  and  deacon 
then,  is  just  as  much  a  fact,  as  that  of  any 
other  officer,  and  Paul  so  instructs:  — 
"Having  then  gifts  differing  according  to 
the  grace  that  is  given  to  us,  whether 
prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the 
proportion  of  faith  ;  or  ministry,  let  w 
wait  on  our  ministering  ;  or  he  that  teach, 
eth  on  teaching." 

How  does  this  list  compare  with  th« 
organization  of  the  Re-organized  Church  ol 
Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints? 

In  that  church,  the  organization  is  as 
follows:  —  Apostles,  Prophets,  Seventy, 
(Evangelists)  High  Priests,  Bishops,  (Pre- 
siding Bishop  and  assistants,)  Elders, 
Priests,  Teachers  and  Deacons,  Helps, 
Governments  and  Diversities  of  tongues 
[Languages], 

Can  you  not  observe  a  similarity  with  the 
New  Testament  order?  Now  think  back 
when  my  opponent  began  to  compare  the 
organization  of  his  church  with  the  New 
Testament  Church,  and  see  what  a  plight 
he  was  caught  in.  He  had  elders  and 
deacons  in  his  church,  and  these  they  made 
themselves.  God  don't  have  anything  to 
do,  he  claims,  in  the  calling  of  the  minister 
by  the  manifestation  of  his  will  in  these 
days  ;  revelation  is  all  confined  to  the  first 
century,  and  "only  a  few  fanatics"  believe 
in  it  any  longer.  But  "  our  church,"  he 
claims,  is  "  identical, — (just  examine  the 
definition  of  that  word,  will  you?)  with  the 
New  Testament  Church  in  organization," 
etc.  Who,  so  little  informed  as  to  be  de- 
ceived longer  by  such  an  assumption? 

The  other  evening  Mr.  Btaden  claimed 
there  were  priests  in  his  church — they  are 
all  kings  and  priests.  He  is  a  high,  or 
Melchezedek  priest. 

Mr.  Braden :  I  did  not  say  I  was  a  Mel- 
chezedek priest. 

Mr.  Kelley  :  O,  you  are  an  Aaronic  priest, 
then,  are  you?  That  gives  me  my  Aaronic 
or  lesser  priesthood  without  much  trouble, 
There  are  only  two  lines  of  priesthood, 
and  a  man  must  either  be  a  priest  after  one 
line  or  the  other.  If  he  is  not  a  Melchezedek 
priest  he  is  an  Aaroiiic,  or  no  priest  at  all 
of  God. 

My  opponent  renews  still  his  objections 
to  the  Latter  Day  Saints  idea  of  God.  But 
;the  trouble  with  him  is.  he  seems  to  be  much 
better  acquainted  with  theBrighamite  views 
and  theories  than  with  that  of  the  Saints. 
But  inojst  any  kind  of  notion  about  God'  is 
better  than  the  Campbellite  view,  for  did 
he  not  confess  in  the  discussion  of  the 
previous  question  that  they  did  not  pretend 
to  know  anything  about  God?  He  finds 
fault  because  some  one  had  expressed  his 
•belief  that  there  are  more  gods  than  one. 
This  was  a  charge  brought  against  Christ 
by  the  Jews,  But  Jesus  answered  "Is  it 
not  written  in  your  law,  I  said  ye  are  gods?' 
If  he  called  them  gods  unto  whoin  the  word 
qt  God  came,  and  the  scripture  cannot  be 
broken  fSiiy  ye  of -him  wiioiri  the  Fattier 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


835 


sanctifieth  and  sent  into  the  world,  thou 
blasphemest?"  John  10:34.  Moses  was 
made  as  God  to  Aaron.  The  Latter  Day 
Saints  believe  with  Paul:  "  Though  there 
be  them  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in 
heaven  or  in  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many 
and  lords  many),  but  to  us  there  is  one  God, 
the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 
in  him  ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by 
whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him." 
"  Howbeit,"  he  says,  "  there  is  not  in  every 
man  this  knowledge."  Just  so;  and  our 
Campbellite  friends,  Braden  says,  have  not 
got  it.  1  Cor.  8 :  5,  6,  7. 

As  to  the  personality  of  God,  the  Latter 
Day  Saints  believe  he  is  something.  That 
he  is  composed  of  substance,  or  essence 
called  spirit,  as  I  have  before  set  forth, 
hence,  it  is  written,  "  God  is  a  Spirit."  Man 
was  made  in  the  image  of  God.  Gen.  1:  27, 
1  Cor.  11 :  7.  Jesus  Christ  wa«  made  in  the 
express  image  of  his  Father's  "person." 
Hebrew  1:3.  "  The  image  of  the  invisible 
God."  Col.  1:15.  Here  it  is  shown  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  express  image  of  his 
Father — of  his  "person,"  and  Jesus  looked 
so  much  like  mankind  in  general  that  he 
was  called  the  '•  Carpenter's  son."  He  ate 
and  drank,  walked  about  and  conversed 
with  man ;  was  crucified  and  laid  in 
Joseph's  new  tomb;  was  raised  from  the 
dead  and  appeared  unto  the  disciples  with 
the  wounds  in  his  hands  and  side.  He  ate 
and  drank  with  his  disc'ples  after  he  arose 
from  the  dead.  Mr.  Braden  thinks  it  would 
be  just  "awful"  if  the  Latter  Day  Saints 
should  think  that  he  digested  also.  How 
did  hegetridofthefish  heate,  Mr. Braden? 
Or  was  it  a  slight  of  hand  performance? 
Remember  it  is  Braden  who  raises  this 
question  and  presumes  it  is  wicked  to  think 
he  digests,  etc.  Besides,  he  has  left  a 
promise  that  he  will  drink  wine  with  his 
disciples  when  he  comes  again.  Yet, 
Braden  says,  the  faith  of  the  Saints  is  a 
"beastly  system,"  because  they  believe 
that  God  has  a  body  and  parts.  Braden 
forgets,  perhaps,  that  every  whole  is  made 
up  of  parts,  and  that  if  God  exists  at  all  he 
exists  somewhere  and  somehow,  and  is 
something.  We  have  shown  that  man  was 
made  in  his  image.  Stephen  says  :  "  I  see 
the  heavens  opened  and  the  Son  of  man 
standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God."  Acts, 
7:  56.  Stephen  saw  the  Father  and  Son,  or 
there  is  no  truth  in  the  Bible.  Then  God  is 
a  being,  and  it  is  not  Paganism  to  believe 
that  he  exists,  and  that  the  Son  was  in  the 
express  image  of  his  person.  But  my 
opponent  says  again  that  the  Latter  Day 
Saints  believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter. 
This  is  a  simple  question.  Which  is  the 
most  reasonable,  to  believe  that  God  made 
the  universe  out  of  nothing,  or  are  the 
elements  out  of  which  the  material  universe 
was  made,  self-existent,  and  God  formed 
the  universe  out  of  this  self-existent 
matter.  Some  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints 
believe  the  latter  the  most  reasonable.  It 
is  simply  a  philosophical  speculation,  and 
uot  a  cardinal  feature  of  the  faith.  As  for 
myself,  it  appears  far  more  reasonable,  that 


God  created  all  things  out  of  existent 
elements,  than  that  he  created  them  out  of 
nothing.  I  would  have  thought,  however, 
that  after  my  opponent  had  had  his  idea  of 
God  creating  all  things  out  of  nothing  so 
effectually  exploded  by  A.  Wilford  Hail,  in 
his  Microcosm  for  Jan.,  1884,  he  would  have 
dismissed  the  unreasonable  and  unphilo- 
sophical  notion  from  his  mind. 

The  Latter  Day  Saints  believe  as  the 
Former  Day  Saints  did  in  the  personality 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  That  they  are 
distinct  personages  ;  that  they  are  omni- 
present by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  substance,  and  is 
intelligent  and  is  the  medium  by  which 
Christ  is  present  with  his  church  on  earth  ; 
hence  he  says,  "If  I  go  away  I  will  send 
the  comforter."  Like  the  light  of  the  Son, 
the  Holy  Spirit  may  pervade  the  whole  uni- 
verse. God  is  also  made  known  through 
other  agencies  by  the  sending  of  his  angels  ; 
but  these  move  and  are  directed  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  their  administrations. 
Christ  sent  his  angel  to  John  on  Patmos  to 
reveal  to  him  the  message  recorded  by  him 
in  the  Book  of  Revelations.  Concerning 
procreation  in  heaven  by  which  Spirits  are 
begotten  as  charged  by  my  opponent  as  be- 
ing a  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Saints,  this  is 
like  much  he  has  had  to  say  during  the 
discussion — an  assertion  of  his.  The  Latter 
Day  Saints  hold  to  no  such  a  faith.  The 
Scriptures  say  God  is  the  "Father  of  Spir- 
its." Heb.  12:9.  That  he  "forms  the  Spirit 
of  man  within  him."  Zech.  12:1.  The  other 
part  and  about  the  queens  in  heaven  my 
opponent  learned  in  his  Salt  Lake  school  in 
which  he  seems  to  have  attained  great  pro- 
ficiency. 

He  challenges  me  to  furnish  one  well 
attested  miracle  that  has  been  wrought 
among  the  Latter  Day  Saints.  The  Latter 
Saints  do  not  rest  their  cause  on  miracles, 
but  to  gratify  my  opponent  I  will  adduce 
one  or  two  by  giving  Campbellite  witnesses  : 

Hayden's  History  of  the  Disciples,  Pages 
250  and  251. 

"Ezra  Booth,  of  Mantua,  a  Methodist  preacher  of 
much  more  than  ordinary  culture,  and  with  strong 
natural  abilities,  in  company  with  his  wife.  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Johnson,  and  some  other  citizens  of  this  place, 
visited  Smith  at  his  home  in  Kirtland,  in  1831.  Mrs. 
Johnson  had  been  afflicted  for  some  time  with  a  lama 
arm,  and  was  not  at  the  time  of  the  visit  able  to  lift  her 
hand  to  her  head.  The  party  visited  Smith  partly  out 
of  curiosity,  and  partly  to  see  for  themselves  what 
there  might  be  in  the  new  doctrine.  During  the  inter- 
view, the  conversation  turned  on  the  subject  of  super- 
natural gifts;  such  as  were  conferred  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  Someone  said,  '  Here  is  Mrs.  Johnson  with  a 
lame  arm  ;  has  God  given  any  power  to  men  now  on 
the  earth  to  cure  her  ?' 

"A  few  moments  later,  when  the  conversation  had 
turned  in  another  direction.  Smith  rose,  and  walking 
across  the  room.  Inking  Mrs  Johnson  by  the  hand  said 
in  the  most  solemn  and  impressive  manner:  '  Woman, 
in  he  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  I  command  thee  to  be 
whole. '  and  immediately  li-fl  tho  room. 

"The  company  were  awe-stricken  at  the  infinite  pre- 
sumption of  the  man,  and  the  calm  assurance  with 
which  he  spoke.  The  sudden  mental  and  moral  shock 
—I  know  not  how  better  to  explain  thi»  well  attested 
fact — electrified  the  rheumatic  arm— Mrs.  Johnson  at 
once  lifted  it  up  with  ease,  and  on  her  n-tnrn  Home  the 
next  day  she  was  able  to  do  her  washing  without  diffi- 
culty or  pain." 

Here  is  your  miracle,  Mr.  Braden,  from 
ypur  uv/ii  history,  pat-formed  in  a  company; 


838 


THE  BPtADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


of  citizens,  none  of  whom  were  Latter  Day 
Saints,  told  by  the  same  company,  the  lead- 
er being  "a  Methodist  preacher  of  much 
more  than  ordinary  culture,"  and  Joseph 
Smith  at  this  time  was  but  a  boy, — not  26 
years  of  age,  Yet  your  own  history  says  it 
was  a."weil  attested  fact,"  and  also  that  this 
young  man,  "spoke  ivith  a  calm  assurance," 
and  commanded  the  woman,  "in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  whole,"  and 
tnen  your  book  says  she  was.  Will  you  ac- 
cept it  or  will  you  try  to  mystify  it  away, 
like  the  writer  of  your  history  does.  When 
Peter  said  to  the  man  at  the  gate  of  the  Tem- 
ple in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  to  be  whole, 
and  he  arose,  you  seem  to  think  it  was  all 
right. 

But  here  is  another  and  a  far  more  fully 
attested  fact,  and  you  begin  to  talk  about 
"moral  and  electric  shocks."  Either  these 
moralizers  are  wrong,  or  the  Bible  is.  Jesus 
taught:  "No man  can  do  a  good  work  in 
rny  name  and  be  against  me." 

This  was  wrought  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ.  What  will  my  opponent  do  with  it  ? 
Go  back  on  Jesus'  words  and  say  it  was  but 
a  shock — mesmerism? 

But    this    Disciple   historian    continues: 

Speaking  of  the  experience  of  Elder  Hyder, 
one  of  their  ministers. 

"In  the  month  of  June,  he  read  in  anews- 
paper  an  accouutof  the  destruction  of  Pekin, 
in  China,  and  he  remembered  that  six  weeks 
before,  a  young  Mormon  girl  had  predicted 
the  destruction  of  that  city." 

Thus  I  have  produced  from  their  own  his- 
tory two  as  remarkable  examples,  one  of 
healing,  the  other  of  prophecy  and  its  fulfill- 
ment, as  he  can  point  to,  with  few  excep- 
tions, in  the  Bible — and  I  wonder  if  he  will 
do  as  those  of  old,  say  it  was'by  some  other 
power  than  that  of  God. 

He  says  that  Latter  Day  Saints  believe 
that  all  who  reject  the  Book  of  Mormon 
will  be  damned.  The  Latter  Day  Saints 
believe  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  a  true 
history  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  the 
American  continent.  That  it  confirms  the 
Bible  teachings  concerning  the  existanceof 
God,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Savior  of 
men.  If  it  is  a  true  message,  and  God  has 
revealed  it,  then  i  t  stands  to  reason  tha  t  men 
are  under  moral  obligation  to  give  it  con- 
sideration, and  if  they  neglect  its  teachings 
they  must  suffer  loss,  the  same  as  if 
rejecting  any  other  Divine  message.  But 
whoever  abides  by  the  faith  of  the  Bible 
necessarily  lives  the  faith  revealed  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  The  great  question  is,  is 
the  Book  of  Mormon  divinely  inspired  ?  If 
BO,  and  which  I  have  proved  to  be  correct, 
then  those  who  have  an  opportunity  to 
become  informed  and  benefited  by  the 
teachings,  but  refuse  to  do  so,  must  take 
the  consequence  of  their  action,  just  as 
people  did  in  olden  times  who  rejected  the 
message  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Jesus,  Paul, 
etc.  Dogged  persistency  and  the  utter 
refusing  of  a  people  to  hear  a  message,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  obligation  and  jus- 
tice demanding  of  them  recognition  ;  neither 
will  it  stay  the  purpose  of  the  Almighty  to 


answer  upon  them  the  proper  rule  of  com- 
pensation. But  he  says  further,  "The 
Latter  Day  Saints  is  the  only  true  and 
living  church  upon  the  face  of  the  whole 
earth  with  which  I,  the  Lord,  am  well 
pleased."  What  of  it?  If  the  true  and 
living  church  had  been  on  earth,  the  proph- 
ets would  not  have  talked  about  a  re- 
storation. No  use  of  restoring  something 
which  is  not  lost,  or  is  already  here.  The 
Disciples  should  not  object  to  this,  for  if 
the  true  and  living  church  was  here  when, 
Mr.  Campbell  commenced  his  great  re- 
storation, then  he  was  a  transgressor. 
Neither  Mr.  Luther,  nor  Mr.  Calvin,  nor 
Mr.  Wesley  thought  the  true  church  was 
here  in  their  day,  so  they  each  built  one  to 
suit  themselves  ;  Just  as  Mr.  Campbell  did. 
While  we  recognize  that  there  are  good 
people  in  all  denominations  trying  to  do 
the  best  they  know,  and  all  have  more  or 
less  good  among  them,  which  one,  Mr. 
Braden,  among  all  the  sects  is  the  true  and 
living  church  of  God,  or  Christ,  or  that  has 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  it  according  to  their  own 
showing?  Will  you  answer?  As  complete 
a  form  of  Godliness  without  the  power  as 
was  ever  presented  to  men  on  earth.  The 
immediate  presence  of  God  and  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  claimed  by  them. 
They  only  claim  God  in  the  word,  etc. 

The  Latter  Day  Saints  claim  what  others 
have  asserted.  That  there  was-  an  apostacy 
from  the  true  church  established  by  Christ, 
that  God  on  account  of  the  desire  of  men  for 
evil  withdrew  his  Spirit,  and  a  day  of  dark- 
ness ensued.  All  true  reformers  unite  in 
this  belief  and  hence  have  worked  to  try  to 
get  back  to  the  original  faith  and  practices. 
But  which  one  has  succeeded.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's was  among  the  last  established,  but 
I  have  proven  that  it  is  wanting  when 
measured  by  the  New  Testament  pattern. 
The  Latter  Day  Saints  make  the  claim  that 
God  has  re-instated  the  ancient  order  of 
things  in  its  authority  and  power,  as  proph- 
ets have  declared  that  he  would.  This  they 
undertake  to  maintain,  but  they  have  been 
met  by  false  and  unfounded  assertions, 
stories  and  slander.  Is  it  unreasonable  and 
wicked  to  hold  that  God  has  done  juBt  what 
he  said  he  would  do  and  has  done?  If  he 
has  set  up  his  church,  then  it  is  the  one  trua 
and  living  church  upon  the  whole  earik. 
John  made  a  similar  claim.  Was  it  wicked? 
Said  he,  "We  know  we  are  of  God  and  the 
whole  world  lieth  in  sin."  I  won  ier  how 
many  said,  John,  you  are  uncharitable  and 
a  bigot.  Certainty  in  religion  Is  an  all 
essential  feature.  This  cannot  be,  save  God 
is  in  it  by  the  revelation  of  his  will,  yet  this 
is  the  main  feature  objected  to  in  the  faith  of 
the  Saints.  Among  all  the  denominations 
of  Christendom  some  one  has  more  truth 
and  light  than  either  of  the  others,  and  each 
claims  that  it  is  his ;  why  should  it  be 
thought  then  sacrilegious  or  astounding 
that  the  Latter  Day  Saints  claim  that  it  is 
theirs? 

He  says  that  Oliver  Cowdery  was  living 
in  concubinage  here  in  Kirtland  This  ia 
another  of  his  false  assertions,  neither  oou 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


337 


he  maintain  it  by  any  reliable  testimony. 
It  is  akin  to  the  false  and  slanderous  asser- 
tions made  against  the  character  of  Martin 
Harris  which  the  citizens  of  Kirtland  know 
to  be  false  and  slanderous.  Even  Tucker 
who  wrote  against  the  Latter  Day  Saints 
confessed  to  Harris'  honesty.  Tucker's 
History  page  61,  he  says  :  "Harris  was  pro- 
verbially a  peaceful  and  honest  man." 


"Honesty  had  always  been  conceded  to 
to  him;"  ibid,  page  71.  Tucker  was  per- 
sonally acquainted  with  Harris  and  wrote 
his  book  while  residing  in  Harris'  old 
neighborhood;  and  although  he  wrote 
wickedly  against  the  Saints,  he  universally 
accords  to  Harris'  honesty. 
(Time  called). 


MR.  BRADEN'S   FOURTH  SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN  :— \V3  reject  the  prophets  who 
are  the  foundation  of  Mormonism,  for  their 
false  prophecies  (Nephi  I  )  that  Laban's 
brass  plates  shall  go  forth  to  all  nations  of 
his  (Lehi's)  seed.  This  prophecy  is  an  utter 
failure.  God  said  through  Joe  (Doctrines and 
Covenants,  page  69),  that  he  will  show  the 
plates  to  three  and  tonone  else.  Eight  others 
say  they  saw  them;  "Whitmer's  mother  says 
she  saw  them;  Emma  Smith  says  she  saw 
and  handled  them,  covered  with  &  thin  cloth. 
The  three  witnesses  were  to  testify  to  having 
Boeii  Laban's  sword,  a  breast  plate,  the 
I.] rim  and  Thumniim,  and  the  brass  compass 
of  Lehi.  They  never  testified  to  seeing  one  of 
them.  God  promised  Oliver  Cowdery  that 
he  should  translate  other  records.  He  never 
did.  Page  75  we  have  a  translation  of  a 
parchment  written  by  the  apostle  John  and 
"hid  up,"  in  which  he  tells  us  that  he  is  to 
remain  on  earth  until  our  Savior  comes 
again.  As  John  says  in  his  gospel  that 
Jesus  did  not  say  that  he  should  remain 
until  he  came  again,  here  is  a  flat  contra- 
diction of  the  Bible.  Why  did  not  John 
tell  Joe  in  person,  as  he  was  one  of  the  three 
to  ordain  Joe?  Or  why  did  he  not  hand 
them  the  letter  then?  Why  not  write  it  in 
English  and  save  Joe  the  trouble  of  trans- 
lating? Why  not  write  on  paper  instead 
parchment?  What  became  of  the  parch- 
ment? Why  not  kept  like  the  papyrus  of 
1  he  Book  of  Abraham  ?  Could  not  the  apos- 
tle John  have  written  English  as  well  as 
for  John  the  Baptist  to  talk  English?  If 
John  talked  English,  could  he  not  write  it? 
How  did  Joe  get  that  parchment?  Did  an 
an  angel  give  it  to  him  ?  Did  he  have  three 
wi' nesses  to  it?  Over  52  years  ago  Joe 
prophecied  that  a  wonderful  city  and  won- 
derful temple  should  be  built  in  Missouri 
in  that  generation.  Not  a  stone  of  either 
have  been  laid,  and  will  not  be  in  a  hun- 
dred years.  Never  will  be.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  predicts  that  the  Lord  will  bring 
forth  the  words  of  the  Book  of  Plates,  of 
which  the  prediction  forms  a  part.  One 
hundred  and  eighteen  pages  were  destroyed 


and  never  brought  to  light.  Another  fail- 
ure. Joe's  inspired  version  in  scores  of  casea 
follows  our  version,  and  in  another  place 
changes  the  same  names,  words  and  sen- 
tences. In  Genesis  iii,  32,  33,  Joe,  like  the 
ignoramus  that  he  was,  put  into  the  trans- 
lation of  the  language  addressed  to  Moses. 
two  verses  of  language  that  God  addressed 
unto  him,  Joe  .Smith.  In  the  inspired  trans- 
lation Adam  is  said  to  have  been  baptized, 
and  baptism  is  said  to  have  been  preached 
under  the  law  of  Moses  by  the  Nephites 
for  hundreds  of  years.  The  Inspired  Trans- 
lation never  mentions  baptism  under  the 
law  of  Moses  in  Palestine.  If  baptism  was 
a  requirement  of  the  law  of  Moses  in  Amer- 
ica, why  not  in  Asia?  If  a  perverted  trans- 
lation omits  it,  why  did  not  Joe's  Inspired 
Translation  mention  it  ?  The  Book  of  Cove- 
nants, says  page  225,  that  John  the  Baptist 
was  baptized  in  his  childhood  and  ordained 
by  the  angel  of  God  at  the  time  he  was 
eight  days  old.  The  Book  of  Mormon  de- 
nounces infant  baptism  as  solemn  mockery, 
a  blasphemous  sin. 

In  May,  1833,  two  months  before  the  In- 
spired Translation  was  finished,  the  Mor- 
mon god  prophecied  that  a  certain  lot  in 
Kirtland  should  have  a  building  erected  on 
it  for  the  publication  of  the  translation. 
The  translation  was  published  33  years 
afterwards  in  Piano,  Illinois.  In  May,'  1833, 
Joe  is  told  that  after  finishing  his  transla- 
tion, he  is  then  to  study  languages.  If,  as 
he  declared,  he  understood  by  inspiration 
all  the  languages,  why  should  he  study? 
If  he  had  to  study,  why  tell  him  to  study 
after  he  had  finished  translating  ?  In  March, 
1833,  Joe  is  told  that  he  need  not  translate 
the  Apocrypha  and  correct  its  errors,  for 
Mormons  who  have  the  Spirit  can  discern 
between  the  truth  and  the  error  in  it.  Could 
not  they  have  done  the  same  with  the  Bible? 
What  need  of  his  translation?  After  Joe 
had  translated  the  Scriptures,  by  inspira- 
tion in  his  preaching,  he  quoted  our  ver- 
sion a  score  of  times,  when  according  to  his 
inspired  version  it  is  grossly  incorrect.  He 
translates  Hebrews  xi,  40:  "That  without 


833 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


suffering  they  should  not  be  made  perfect." 
In  defending  baptism  for  the  dead  nine 
years  afterwards,  he  quotes  our  grossly 
incorrect  version  :  "That  they  without  us 
should  not  be  made  perfect,"  and  makes  his 
argument  turn  on  the  erroneous  word  and 
the  error. 

Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants,  page 
244,  feet  washing  is  pronounced  an  ordi- 
nance and  restricted  to  the  priesthood. 
Paulsays,  "If  she  have  washed  the  Saint's 
feet."  When  Joe  comes  to  that  to  avoid 
conflict  with  his  revelation  given  about  six 
months  before,  he  changed  it  into,  "If  she 
has  washed  the  Saint's  clothes."  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants,  page  226.  Break- 
ing the  covenant  of  priesthood  is  an  un- 
pardonable sin.  If  Peter  was  a  priest  as 
Mormonism  declares,  he  broke  his  covenant 
and  lied,  and  swore,  yet  he  was  pardoned. 
If  John  is  on  earth,  as  the  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants  declares,  where  is  he?  Is 
he  preaching  and  doing  some  good  ?  If  he 
is  skulking  around  in  idleness,  why  is  he 
here?  On  pages  294,  328,  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants,  we  are  told  that  Michael 
the  archangel  and  Adam  are  the  same  per- 
son. The  Bible  utterly  forbids  the  idea 
that  men's  spirits  become  angels.  Man 
was  made  lower  than  the  angels.  Men  be- 
come equal  to  the  angels.  Christ  took  not 
on  him  the  nature  of  angels  but  human 
nature.  The  assembly  of  the  first  born  and 
angels  are  different.  Page  234,  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants.  Inspiration  tells 
us  that  "the  spirit  and  body  is  the  soul 
of  man."  When  Abinadi  prayed,  "O  God 
receive  my  soul,"  Did  he  mean  his  body 
and  spirit?  When  Elisha  prays,  "Let  this 
child's  soul  come  into  him,"  it'meant,  "Let 
this  child's  body  and  spirit  comeinto  him." 
Again  the  Book  of  Mormon  says,  soul  and 
body  shall  be  re-umted  in  resurrection. 

Joe's  inspired  translation  renders  Matt, 
xvii,  18,  "Whatsoever  ye  shall  oind  on 
earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven."  In  ar- 

5ifying  on  Baptism  for  the  dead,  inspired 
oe  renders  it,  "Whatsoever  ye  record  on 
earth,  it  shall  be  recorded  in  heaven." 
Which  ins|  iration  is  right?  In  the  Book  of 
Mormon  we  have  a  metal  called  "zif,"and  we 
have  'cureloms'  and  'cummons'  as  animals." 
If  Joe  was  inspired,  why  did  not  he  trans- 
late those  words?  Uninspired  translators 
might  plead  ignorance,  but  inspired  Joe 
cannot.  When  Joe  lost  his  gift  to  translate 
what  did  he  lose?  Did  he  lose  his  inter- 
preters? It  says  he.  lost  "tha  writings  and 
his  gift  too."  If  the  gift  was  in  Joe,  what 
need  of  the  interpreters?  If  in  the  inter- 
preters how  could  he  lose  it  without  losing 
the  interpreters  too?  Page  69,  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants,  Joe  is  to  have  no 
other  gift  than  to  translate,  no  other  until 
the  translation  is  finished.  Joe  tells  us  that 
two  months  before  the  translation  was  fin- 
ished he  exercised  the  gift  of  prophecy. 
The  .\lormouGodwasmistakenagain.  Joe, 
Bays  Hook  of  -Doctrines  and  Covenants, 
page  112.  that  it  was  Elias  who  visited 
Zechariah  the  father  of  John.  Luke  says 
it  was  Gabriel.  Luke  was  mistaken.  Joe 


says  that  Elijah  and  Ellas  visited  him  afc 
the  dedication  of  the  temple.  The  ignor- 
amus did  not  know  that  the  Elijah  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  Elias  of  the  New, 
aie  one  and  the  same  person. 

The  witnesses  are  to  see  the  plates  by 
faith.  They  are  to  believe  that  they  saw 
them.  Harris  declared  he  never  saw  them 
with  his  natural  sight.  He  saw  them  by 
faith.  He  believed  he  saw  them,  imagined 
it.  In  the  Book  of  Mormon  Christ  repeat* 
to  theNephites  part  of  Malachi's  prophecy. 
Joe's  Inspired  Translation  agrees  with  our 
version,  and  contradicts  Christ  in  several 
places,  and  disagrees  with  our  version  it> 
several  places  where  Christ  agrees  witU 
our  version.  I  would  like  to  know  which  is 
right,  inspired  Joe  or  Christ?  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants:  "He  that  kills 
has  no  forgiveness  in  this  world,  nor  in  the 
world  to  come."  The  Nephite  Church  was 
founded  by  the  murderer  and  unpardoned 
sinner  Nephi.  The  Book  of  Mormon  de- 
clares that  Nephites,  Jacobites,  Josephites, 
and  Zoramites  became  one  people,  called 
Nephites,  and  were  exterminated  400  after 
Christ.  Doctrines  and  Covenants,  page  !»•{>, 
declares  that  a  knowledge  of  the  Saviour 
shall  come  to  Nephites,  Zoramites,  Jacob- 
ites, and  Josephites  through  the  Book  of 
Mormon.  Page  248,  Joe  declares  that  Mis- 
souri Zion  shall  not  be  moved  out  of  her 
place.  In  less  than  nine  mouths  it  was 
moved  and  has  never  got  back.  Page  26<», 
Joe  declares  there  is  no  other  place  than 
Zion, in  Missouri,  appointed  fora  gathering. 
Page  306,  Joe  says  that  if  the  sons  of  men 
prove  too  strong  for  the  Lord,  he  will  excuse 
his  people,  and  that  he  accepts  offerings  to 
build  up  Nauvoo,  built  before  his  law 
allowed  them  to  build  it. 

Joe,  in  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants, 
page  98,  gives  a  baptismal  formula  in  viola, 
tion  of  Christ's  words  to  the  Nephites,  who 
gave  the  exact  words  Nephites  were  to  use. 
If  Joe  was  a  Nephite  why  did  he  violate 
Christ's  law?  Page  93,  Joe  does  not  know 
that  our  Christian  era  begins  four  to  six 
years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  Doctrines 
and  Covenants,  page  155,  Joe  promises  that 
he  will  give  additional  information  when 
he  translates  the  New  Testament  in  regard 
to  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins.  The 
Mormon  God  forgot  all  about  that  when  he 
translated  that  parable.  The  Book  of  Mor- 
mon declares  that  Mulek  and  Lehi,  sons  of 
Zedekiah,  led  the  second  emigration  to 
America.  The  Bible,  even  Joe's  own  in- 
spired version,  declares  that  the  King  of 
Babylon  slew  the  son?  of  Zedekiah  and  all 
the  princes  of  Judah — all  the  nobles  of 
Judah.  A  flat  contradiction.  Again  Zede- 
kiah's  eldest  sou  could  not  have  been  more 
than  ten  or  twelve  years  old,  for  Zedekiah 
was  only  thirty-two  when  he  was  de- 
throned. What  leaders  they  must  hav& 
made.  Slaughtered  children  ten  years  old. 
The  Book  of  Mormon,  after  telling  us  that 
Nephites  arid  Lamanites  talked  with  each 
other  without  interpreters,  that  Nephiles 
preached  to  Lamanites  and  their  leaders 
talked  to  each  other  in  scores  of  instances 


TILE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


839 


without  any  interpreters,  tells  in  Mosiah 
xi :  3,  that'the  language  of  the  Nephites 
began  to  be  taught  among  the  Lamauites. 
The  Mormon  God  forgot  again. 

The  Book  of  Mormon  teaches  that  bap- 
tism is  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Yet  Alma 
(Mosiah  XI  22.)  was  pardoned  and  born  of 
the  Spirit  by  the  fall-down  power  before  he 
was  baptized.  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cov- 
enants, page  100.  It  is  denied  that  torment 
has  no  end.  The  Book  of  Mormon  (Mosiah. 
III.  1.  Mosiah  I.  10.  I.  Nephi  III.  44.) 
It  is  positively  declared  to  be  endless. 
Book  of  Mormon  (Mormon  III.  2.)  Mormon 
says  he  hid  the  plates  in  the  hill  of  Comorah. 
Moroni  says  (Ether  VI.  3)  Mormon  hid 
them  in  the  hill  Ramah.  Which  shall  we 
believe?  The  Book  of  Mormon  keeps  poor 
Moroni  dodging  I/amanites,  36  years  before 
he  hides  those  few  plates  for  Joe.  Could 
he  not  have  done  it  a  little  sooner?  The 
Book  of  Mormon  (Alma  XIX.  2.)  declares 
that  all  the  righteous  who  died  before 
Christ's  resurrection  rose  at  or  after  his 
resurrection,  before  his  ascension.  The 
Inspired  Translation  places  the  resurrection 
of  some  Saint  at  the  crucifixion.  Book  of 
Mormon  (Mormon  II.)  declares  that  mira- 
cles had  ceased  when  Mormon  was  15  years 
old.  It  declared  95  years  afterwards  (Mor- 
mon VJI.  13-4)  that  miracles  have  not 
ceased.  In  quoting  Isaiah  Ixiii,  in  his 
visit  to  the  Nephites  our  Savior  changes 
the  language  in  several  places.  In  his  In- 
spired Translation  Joe  follows  our  version. 
Which  is  correct,  Christ  or  inspired  Joe? 
ButVe  have  found  contradictions  enough 
in  our  investigation.  We  could  -multiply 
them  indefinitely. 

As  we  are  exarning  Mormon  revelations, 
the  basis  or  Mormonisrn  let  us  see  how  the 
stories  of  Morrnonism  hang  together. 

Book  of  Mormon  (Mormon  III.  2.)  we  are 
told  that  Mormon  hid  in  the  hill  Comorah 
all  the  records  of  the  Nephites,  Zarahem- 
lites,  and  Jaredites,  that  had  been  in  the 
possession  of  the  Nephites,  except  an 
abridgement  he  engraved  on  a  few  plates, 
leaving  a  few  plates  of  "  these  few  plates  '' 
for  Moroni,  who  is  to  complete  the  record, 
for  Joe  Smith.  Moroni  (Mormon  IV.  1.) 
tells  us  that  his  plates  are  full,  when  he 
has  done  this,  and  he  has  no  ore  or  plates. 
Yet  he  writes  57  pages  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon on  nothing.  As  Mormon  had  buried 
the  plates  of  Ether,  how  did  Moroni  get 
them  to  abridge  them.  Moroni  says  (Ether 
I.  1.)  that  he  wrote  an  abridgement  of  only 
part  of  Ether's  plates,  and  that  whoever 
gets  them,  will  get  the  full  account,  But 
God  said  to  Jared's  brother:  "Write  them 
in  a  language  that  they  cannot  read."  How 
can  the  finder  understand  them.  He  says 
that  the  two  stone  interpreters  are  to  be 
sealed  up  with  them,  so  that  the  finder  can 
read  them.  But  Joe  found  these  identical 
interpreters  of  Jared's  brother.  How  will 
the  fellow  who  finds  Ether's  plates  under- 
stand them,  when  the  interpreters  are 
gone  ?  Ether's  plates  were  not  what  Joe 
found,  nor  with  what  he  found.  As  the 
Interpreters  were  sealed  up  with  Ether's 


plates,  which  Joe  did  not  find,  and  not 
with  Mormon's  plates  which  Joe  did  find, 
how  did  Joe  get  those  interpreters?  How 
did  they  get  into  that  stone  vault  with 
Moroni's  plates,  when  they  were  buried  in 
another  place,  with  Ether's  plates?  Mor- 
mon, as  we  have  seen,  hid  all  the  records, 
yet,  Moroni  says  (Ether  I.  7.)  that  he  hides 
Ether's  plates  again  in  the  earth.  The 
plates  are  Ether's,  Kot  Moroni's,  for  Moroni 
writes  on  Mormon's  plates  27  pages  after 
hiding  up  the  plates  he  hid.  He  sealed  tha 
plates  he  hid,  and  he  could  not  write  on  seal- 
ed plates.  He  hid  the  interpreters  with  the 
plates  he  hid,  Ether's  plates,  and  Joe 
found  them  with  Mormon's  plates.  Moroni 
says  in  the  next  chapter  that  he  had  sealed 
up  the  plates  of  Ether,  and  the  interpre- 
ters with  them,  and  he  wrote  from  memory 
on  the  plates  of  Mormon,  really  on  nothing 
as  we  have  seen,  and  yet  Joe  finds  the  Jar- 
edite  interpreters  with  Moroni's  plates. 
Those  interpreters  and  plates  were  like  the 
thimble  in  thinble  rigging.  Now  you  see 
it.  Now  you  don't. 

Mosiah's  interpreters  were  dreadful 
things.  If  one  who  was  not  commanded 
looked  through  them  he  would  perish. 
Whitmer  looked  through  Joe's  interpreters 
and  was  not  hurt.  If  one  looked  through 
them  he  became  a  seer.  Whitmer  did  not. 
The  gift  was  in  the  person  and  the  inter- 
preters were  useless.  Mosiah's  interpreters 
were  handed  down  from  the  time  Lehi  left 
Jerusalem.  Ether's  plates  are  found  and 
no  interpreters  with  them.  Mosiah  trans- 
lated them  with  his  interpreters,  although 
theLord  had  said  noone  could  interpret  them 
unless  he  had  the  Jaredite  interpreters.  If 
Moroni  interpreted  Ether's  plates  which  he 
never  had,  for  Mormon  hid  them — and 
which  he  had — for  he  buried  them  himself 
— how  could  he  do  it,  for  the  interpreters  of 
Jared's  brother  were  not  found  with  them. 
After  Moroni  hid  the  plates  of  Ether,  which 
he  never  had,  and  which  he  had,  and  witii 
them  the  Jaredite  interpreters,  whi^h  he 
never  had  and  which  he  had,  how  did  Joe 
find  them  with  the  plates  of  Mormon  with 
which  they  were  hid. 

Jared's  brother's  plates  are  not  to  go  forth 
till  the  Gentiles  are  converted.  Book  of 
Mormon  page  507.  Ether  engraves  plates 
and  Limbi's  people  find  them,  not  Jared'a 
brother's  plates,  for  Ether  did  not  have 
them,  unless  the  Lord  was  mistaken  when 
he  had  them  buried.  Mosiah  finds  Limbi'a 
people  who  give  him  Ether's  plates.  This 
is  the  first  time  a'Nephite  saw  them.  But 
on  page  507  we  are  told  that  King  Benjamin 
who  had  been  dead  years,  who  was  Mosiah'a 
predecessor,  had  Jared's  brother's  plates. 
His  people  did  not  know  of  any  Jaredite 
plates,  till  years  after  his  death.  Will  my 
opponent  tell  us  how  Benjamin  had  Jared'a 
biother's  plates  when  the  Limbites  found 
Ether's  plates  and  not  Jared's  brother's. 
Will  he  tell  us  how  Benjamin  had  any 
Jaredite  plates,  when  his  people  knew  noth- 
ing of  Jaredite  plates  or  the  people  that  had 
them  until  years  after  his  death  ?  In  Nephi 
i :  7.  Amos'  began  to  keep  records  A.  D.  294, 


840 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Id.  1 : 2,  Amos  died  A.  D.  305 ;  or  he  kept 
records  one  hundred  and  eleven  years. 
As  his  lather  was  one  hundred  when 
he  gave  him  the  records,  Amos  was 
an  old  man  when  he  got  them,  and  must 
have  been  over  160.  So  Amaron  the  brother 
of  Amos  must  have  been  over  160.  Nephi 
xiii :  3  Christ  puts  the  limit  of  man's  age  at 
72.  Yet  Amos  and  Amarou  were  engravers 
on  metal  lond  after  they  were  twice  that 
age.  II  Nephi  ii :  2  Amaron  hides  plates, 
A.  D.  320,  when  Mormon  is  ten.  Mormon  is 
to  dig  them  up  when  he  is  twenty-four,  or 
A.  D.  334.  He  dug  them  up  A.  D.'  345,  or  11 
years  after  Amaron  had  said  he  would  do 
it,  Bigdon  added  24  to  320  instead  of  14, 
forgetting  that  Mormon  was  ten. 

Lehi  declares  (2,  Nephi  I.)  "That  the 
seed  of  his  son  Joseph  shall  not  be  utterly 
destroyed  :  "  The  Nephites,  including  the 
seed  of  his  son  Joseph,  were  utterly  ex- 
terminated, according  to  Mormon  and 
Moroni.  If  Moroni  tells  the  truth  Lehi  was 
a  false  prophet.  The  Book  of  Mormon  de- 
clares that  Joe  Smith  the  Seer  is  of  the  seed 
of  Joseph  the  patriarch.  Joe  Smith  was  a 
Gentile.  That  prophecy  is  false.  If  Joe 
Smith  was  a  josephiteor  Israelite,  then  the 
prophecy  (Nephi  XII  1.)  that  the  finder  and 
translator  of  the  records  shall  be  a  Gentile 
is  false.  If  Joe  is  of  the  seed  of  Nephi. 
Lehi's  son,  then  the  Nephitea  were  not 
exterminated,  and  the  book  is  false.  If 
they  were  exterminated  then  Joe  is  not  a 
descendant  of  the  Nephites.  If  Joe  is  a 
descendent  of  Lehi  he  must  be  a  Lamanite 
Indian,  for  the  Nephites  were  all  extermi- 
nated. I.  Nephi  IX,  15.  The  Book  of 
Mormon  is  called  a  revelation  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world  till  its  end.  Ether 
1  It  extends  no  further  back  than  the 
Tower  of  Babel,  thousands  of  years  after 
the  beginning.  Alma  XXI,  2.  Alma  proph- 
esies that  the  people  shall  dwindle  in 
unbelief  400  years  after  Christ  shall  man- 
ifest himself  to  them.  He  manifested 
himself  in  A.  D.  34.  The  Nephites  were 
destroyed  A.  D.  384  or  350  years  from  Christ's 


manifestation,  or  50  years  too  soon ,  and  they 
dwindled  in  unbelief  many  years  before 
this,  or  more  than  50  years  too  soon. 
Itigdon  counted  from  Christ's  birth  instead 
of  from  his  manifestation,  and  then  got 
it  40  or  50  years  too  soon,  for  that.  Rigdou 
was  not  good  in  figures.  The  Book  of  Mor- 
mon says,  "Saints  arose  at  the  resurrection 
of  Christ."  The  Inspired  Translation  says, 
"at  his  crucifixion."  Which  is  correct? 
A  Mormon  revelation  in  the  Book  of  Doc- 
trines and  Covenants,  page  319,  says  that 
"John  the  Baptist  was  raised  at  the 
restirrection|of  Christ."  The  Inspired  Trans- 
lation says  that  "  the  Saints  arose  at  his 
crucifixion."  If  Saints  arose  immortal  at 
the  crucifixion  how  could  Christ  be  the 
first  born  from  the  dead?  But  why  follow 
these  contradictory  jumbles  any  further. 
This  is  revelation.  Mormonism  is  divine 
doubtless,  when  there  is  scarcely  a  page  of 
its  revelations  that  is  not  contradicted  by 
some  other  page.  I  will  give  my  opponent 
an  additional  contradiction  of  the  Bible  to 
the  scores  already  given.  The  Book  of 
Mormon,  page  445,  Christ  declares  that 
after  his  apostles  have  baptized  persons 
in  water  he  will  baptize  them  with  fire  and 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Matthew,  III,  10,  "And 
now  the  axe  is  laid  to  the  root  of  the  trees, 
therefore  every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth 
good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the 
fire.  I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water  unto 
repentance,  but  he  that  cometh  after  me 
shall  baptise  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in 
fire,  whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  will 
thoroughly  purge  his  floor  and  gather  his 
wheat  in  his  garner,  but  he  will  burn  the 
chaff  with  uiquenchable  fire."  Evil  trees 
are  burned  with  fire,  the  chaff  is  burned 
with  unquenchable  fire,  baptize  in  fire. 
The  baptism  in  fire  is  for  the  wicked.  The 
wheat  is  gathered  in  the  garner ;  good  trees 
are  cherished  ;  the  good  are  baptised  in  the 
Holy  Spmt.  The  Book  of  Mormon  teaches 
that  God  gives  the  baptism  of  fire,  the 
doom  of  the  wicked  to  his  children. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


341 


MR.  KELLEY'S  FIFTH   SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GKNTM  MKN  : — As  my  opponent  has  left  the 
field  entirely,  so  far  as  undertaking  to  make 
and  stand  by  an  argument,  and  devotes  his 
time  wholly  to  hunting  up  supposed  objec- 
tions to  some  things  in  some  of  our  published 
works  and  rehearsing  these,  together  with 
the  stories  told,  I  shall  take  the  time  to  ex- 
amine these  as  I  proceed.  I  am  aware  that 
a  more  intelligent  judgment  of  the  merits 
of  our  faith  might  be  arrived  at,  if  my  op- 
ponent would  but  select  a  few  of  what  he 
deems  the  most  prominent  errors,  and  try 
to  maintain  that  they  are  such,  so  we  could 
get  down  upon  a  basis  of  genuine  argument 
and  thereby  test  the  matter;  but  it  must 
be  quite  evident  to  all  by  this  time  that  he 
is  not  the  man  to  meet  the  issue  in  this  way. 
I  shall  therefore  take  a  look  at  his  running 
objections. 

Again  he  says:  "The  Latter  Day  Saints 
believed  in  baptizing  children  at  8  years  of 
age."  Yes,  if  they  have  been  properly  in- 
structed in  the  faith,  and  understand  the 
object  of  baptism,  and  desire  so  to  be.  Can 
he  produce  something  better,  or  show  where 
this  disagrees  with  the  word  of  God?  He 
misrepresents  the  faith  of  the  Saints,  by 
saying,  "they  believe  they  will  reign  over 
the  Gentiles  in  the  Millenium."  The  Saints 
believe  in  the  prayer  taught  them  by  the 
Savior,  "Thy  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be 
done  on  earth  as  in  heaven."  That  he  will 
come  and  reign  with  his  saints  on  the  earth. 
"And  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth,"  Rev. 
6:10.  "The  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth," 
Math.  6.  The  kingdom  and  dominion  under 
the  whole  heaven  shall  be  given  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  saints.  Dan.  7:22. 

Again,  he  objects,  that  the  doctrine  of 
baptizing  for  the  dead  was  once  taught 
among  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  as  though  it 
was  a  very  wicked  thing.  What  does  this 
mean  Mr.  Bradeu  ?  "Else  what  shall  they 
do  which  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the 
dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  Why  are  they  then 
baptized  for  the  dead."  I  Cor.  15:29.  It 
seems  to  have  been  a  common  practice  and 
well  understood  by  the  ancient  Saints ;  so 
much  so,  that  Paul  based  an  argument  upon 
it;  will  he  scandalize  Paul  also?  This  is 
in  the  New  Testament ;  he  doubtless  knows 
little  or  nothing  about  it,  but  Paul  had  an 
understanding  of  it.  Paul  says  further, 
"No  man  knows  the  things  of  God  but  the 
Spirit  of  God,"  and  the  Disciples  deny  the 
possibility  of  God's  Spirit  as  being  able  to 
reveal  any  thing  in  this  age,  and  it  is  no 
wonder  that  they  know  no  more  about  this 
than  many  other  things.  Is  it  wicked  to 
believe  in  the  New  Testament?  Again, 
"For,  for  this  cause  was  the  Gospel  preached 
to  them  that  are  dead,  that  they  might  be 
judged  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but 
live  according  to  God  in  the  Spirit  "  I  Peter 
4:6.  Shall  the  Latter  Day  Saints  deny  this 


part  of  the  New  Testament  also,   because 
•  the    Campbellites    dou't    know    anything 
about  it  ? 

He  misrepresents  the  Saints  again,  when 
he  says  that  they  claim  they  will  be  greater 
than  Christ  in  the  next  world.  They  claim 
that  they  will  be  equal  heirs  with  him  to 
the  inheritance  of  the  saints.  Hence,  Paul 
says,  "And  if  children,  then  heirs  ;  heirs  of 
God  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ ;  if  it  so  be 
that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  be 
also  glorified  together."  Rom.  8:17.  "The 
Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  Spirit 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  Rom.  8:- 
16.  "Sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  prom- 
ise, which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance 
until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  pos- 
session." Eph.  1:13,  14,  and  4:30.  "And 
because  ye  are  Sons,  God  hath  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  cry- 
ing, Abba.  Father.  Wherefore,  thou  art 
nomore  a  servant,  but  a  Son  ;  and  if  a  Son, 
then  an  heir  of  God  through  Christ."  Gal. 
4:6,  7.  This  was  the  faith  of  Ancient  Saints; 
and  of  course  must  be  of  the  Latter  Day 
Saints. 

My  opponent  attacked  the  inspired  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible  with  but  little  effect. 
Did  not  Joseph  Smith  have  as  good  a  right 
to  translate  the  Bible  as  Mr.  Campbell  and 
Mr.  McKnight,  or  the  Baptists,  or  the 
Adventists,  or  those  who  recently  trans- 
lated what  is  known  as  the  New  Revision  ? 
Mr.  Smith's  translation  stands  upon  its 
merits  just  like  all  the  rest.  If  it  reveals 
the  Scriptures  in  the  true  light,  then  it  is 
good.  If  not,  then  let  him  show  it.  But 
he  says,  Smith  stole  from  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon and  put  in  the  Inspired  Translation. 
But  first,  according  to  Braden,  he  stole  from 
the  Bible  and  made  the  Book  of  Mormon ; 
now,  he  has  him  steal  from  the  Book  oi 
Mormon  to  make  the  Inspired  Translation 
What  a  thief!  It  is  like  a  man  stealing 
himself  rich  from  his  own  pocket- book,  with 
but  a  dollar  to  start  with. 

He  says,  Latter  Day  Saints  accept  all 
that  Smith  says  in  the  "Times  and  Seasons," 
"Elder's  Journal,"  or  anywhere  else  as  in- 
spiration. This  is  not  correct.  I  read  from  a 
publication,  showing  the  contrary  as  fol- 
lows: "At  a  conference  held  at  Beloit,  Wis., 
on  the  12th  and  13th  of  June,  1852,  the  follow- 
ing was  passed:  Resolved,  that  the  whole 
law  of  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  con- 
tained in  the  Bible,  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants."  Word 
of  Consolation,  page  2. 

The  Latter  Day  Saints  hold  the  Bible  in 
equal  veneration,  with  any  people  on  the 
earth  ;  they  also  believe  in  the  truth  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  other  revelations, 
that  they  are  assured  come  from  God. 
They  believe  that  God  is  just  as  capable  of 
giving  a  true  revelation  of  himself  now,  as 
at  any  time  since  the  world  began. 


342 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


My  opponent's  attack  on  the  "Rook  of  Doc- 
trine and  Covenants  was  so  ridiculous,  that 
it  was  sufficient  within  itself  to  carry  its 
own  refutation  along  with  it.  He  says,  the 
saints  have  gone  back  on  the  idea  of  con- 
verting the  Indians,  etc.  This  is  not  cor- 
rect. The  Saints  believe  that  many  of  the 
Indian  nations  will  finally  accept  the  faith  ; 
some  individuals  have  already  done  so. 

Again,  Martin  Harris  was  not  required 
to  tell  any  lies  as  asserted  by  my  opponent 
last  night.  He  was  promised  a  view  of  the 
plates  if  faithful.  He  had  been  telling 
some  things  about  the  plates  and  in  the 
revelation  referred  to  and  he  was  charged 
that  he  should  say  no  more  concerning 
them,  except  he  should  bear  the  testimony 
that  God  should  give  him,  at  the  time  he 
should  sufficiently  humble  himself  that  he 
might  obtain  a  view  of  them.  Page  70, 
F>ook  of  Covenants.  Any  one  who  wishes, 
can  read  and  satisfy  themselves.  From 
Braden's  first  reference,  up  to  page  194,  in  his 
jumbling  of  things,  there  remains  nothing 
that  needs  even  an  explanation.  All  are 
explained  by  the  book  itself;  easy  to  be 
understood  and  deserve  a  better  consider- 
ation than  a  tirade  of  gush  and  ridicule. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  charge  that  the 
book  permits  stealing.  Certain  ones  were 
assigned  to  a  certain  work  and  its  says  : 
"Ye  are  on  the  Lord's  errand;  and  what- 
ever you  do  according  to  the  will  of  the 
Lord,  is  the  Lord's  business."  Whatever 
they  did  according  to  the  will  of  the  Lord, 
was  the  Lord's  business. 

This  book  expressly  and  empJtaticaUy  for- 
bids any  such  thing.  Pages  142  and  177. 
Is  it  according  to  the  will  of  the  Lord  to 
steal?  If  it  is,  then  stealing  is  taught  in. 
the  revelation,  otherwise  it  is  not.  He 
charges  on  the  Revelation,  the  teaching  of 
the  shedding  of  blood,  which  he  impiously 
says  led  to  the  Mountain  Meadow  massacre. 
Here  is  the  passage  : 

"For  Satan  puts  it  into  their  hearts  (the  enemies  of 
the  Saints;  to  anger  against  you  and  to  the  shedding  of 
blood,  wherefore  the  laud  of  Zion  shall  be  obtained  but 
by  purchase  or  by  blood,  otherwise  there  is  none 
inhe  itanne  for  you.  And  if  by  purchase,  behold,  ye 
are  blessed;  and  if  by  blood,  as  you  are  forbidden  to 
thed  blood,  lo,  your  enemies  are  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  scourged  from  city  to  city,  and  from  synagogue  to 
synagogue,  and  but  few  shall  stand  to  receive  an 
inheritance."  Page  189. 

The  Revelation  positively  forbids  blood 
shedding.  It  says,  there  is  but  two  ways 
to  get  possession  of  the  land,  by  purchase 
or  war  ;  and  they  were  advised  to  purchase 
and  forbidden  to  shed  blood,  and  reminded 
that  if  they  did  their  efforts  would  fail  and 
their  enemies  be  upon  them,  and  they  would 
be  scourged  and  but  a  few  of  them  would 
ever  live  long  enough  to  receive  an  inherit- 
ance. Who  will  say  it  was  not  a  true  state- 
ment? But  he  says  it  led  to  the  Mountain 
Meadow  slaughter.  He  might  just  as  well 
have  said  the  advice  of  Christ,  "If  they 
smite  you  on  the  right  cheek,  turn  the  left 
also,"  led  to  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill.  The 
whole  of  the  references  to  pages  included 
between  65  and  301,  are  of  a  piece,  misrepre- 
sentation and  ridicule,  and  he  has  made  no 
material  or  worthy  criticism  against  them, 


and  it  would  be  but  to  waste  my  lime  on 
frivolous  matters  to  consider  them  by  item, 
but  I  have  replied  to  that  which  has  a 
semblance  of  needing  an  explanation.  There 
is  neither  truth  nor  point  in  his  vulgar 
tirade  or  jargon  read  off  last  evening,  claim- 
ing to  be  a  criticism  of  the  Book  of  Doctrines 
and  Covenants.  Just  let  him  select  one 
single  i  tern  that  he  is  witling  to  take  a  stand 
upon  and  maintain  that  it  is  false  and  he 
will  have  done  something,  until  then,  his 
tirade  is  unworthy  of  notice.  Again  he 
says  that  men  never  become  angels.  But 
Moses  and  Elias  appeared  in  the  capacity  of 
angels  on  the  Mount  with  Christ.  Luke 
9:30-31.  Angels  were  frequently  called 
men.  Gen.  18:2.  Josh.  5:13.  Lu'ke24:4. 
Acts  1:10.  Hen.  13:2. 

Men  are  called  angels.  Rev.  2  : 1.  "Unto 
the  angel  of  the  church  of  Ephesus."  Also 
verses  8-18  and  chapter  3:1,7,  14. 

"And  I  fell  at  his  feet  to  worship  him. 
And  he  said  unto  me  See  thou  doit  not,  I 
am  thy  fellow  servant  and  of  thy  brethren 
who  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus."  Rev. 
19:  10.  Here  one  of  the  old  prophets  was 
sent  to  John  on  Patmos  as  an  angel  and  he 
tells  him,  "I  am  thy  fellow  servant  and  of 
thy  brethren."  Saints  are  called  angels. 
Deut.  33:2.  Psalms  68: 17.  Jude  14.  Zach. 
14:5.  Matth.  25:31.  He  passes  by  my 
Scriptural  texts  with  a  wave  of  the  hand  ; 
has  not  "patience  to  notice  them."  Yet,  he 
declines  to  undertake  to  show  wherein 
either  one  of  these  texts  are  misapplied.  I 
asked  him  to  try  Isaiah  11,  but  he  don't 
make  a  stand. 

He  asks  me  to  state  why  the  Book  of 
Mormon  and  Inspired  Translation  do  not 
contain  the  same  wording,  when  both  were 
translated  by  inspiration,  and  cites  Matt. 
7 : 23  as  follows:  "And  then  will  I  say  ye 
never  knew  me."  Inspired  Translation  : 
"And  then  will  I  profess  unto  them  I  never 
knew  you."  Book  of  Mormon,  page  450. 
This  I  have  answered  before.  The  Inspired 
Translation  and  Book  of  Mormon  are  both 
distinct  translations.  One  from  the  record 
of  the  Jews,  the  other  from  the  record  of 
the  Nephites.  Neither  claims  to  give  the 
language  verbatim  as  it  was  delivered  by 
the  Savior,  but  as  it  was  written  on  the 
record  by  the  respective  parties  making  the 
records.  There  is  nothing  surprising  in  the 
thought  that  two  writers  should  differ  in 
the  presentation  of  their  ideas  at  times  and 
agree  perfectly  at  other  times.  The  sense 
is  the  same  here  in  either  case.  To  know 
God  or  to  be  known  of  God  means  just  the 
same;  hence,  "I  never  knew  you,"  or  "you 
never  knew  me,  "is  the  same  sentiment,  but 
by  different  ways  of  expression.  One  writer 
uses  one  method  and  the  other  writer  the 
opposite,  and  so  they  were  translated. 

My  opponent  further  says,  the  baptism 
of  fire  is  the  burning  of  the  wicked  when 
Christ  comes,  "burning  up  the  chaff,"  etc. 
But  had  he  read  a  little  more  closely,  he 
could  have  avoided  this  blunder.  In  Math. 
3,  it  is  shown  that  the  identical  parties 
who  were  baptized  with  water  were  to  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire; 


THE  BRADEN  AND.KELLEY  DEBATE. 


343 


The  -wicked  has  no  promise  in  either  bap- 
tism. "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water," 
says  John ;  "He  shall  baptize  you  [the 
same  ones]  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire." 
They  were  thus  baptized.  "And  there 
appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as 
of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and 
they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Acts,  2:3,  4. 

The  element  or  property  of  fire— warmth 
— is  associated  with  the  substance  known 
AS  the  Holy  Spirit  which  dwells  with  heav- 
enly beings.  Said  the  disciples,  "Did  not 
our  hearts  burn  within  us  while  he  talked 
with  us  by  the  way,  and  while  he  opened 
tons  the  Scriptures?"  Luke  24:32.  "But 
his  word  was  in  mine  heart  as  a  burning 
fire  shut  up  in  my  bones."  Jeremiah  20 :  9. 
Says  David,  "My  heart  was  hot  within 
me,  while  I  was  musing  the  fire  burned  ; 
then  spake  I  with  my  tongue."  Ps.  39:3. 
"His  eyes  were  as  a  flame  of  fire."  Rev. 
1:14;  Dan.  10:6.  "And  the  sight  of  theglory 
of  the  Lord  was  like  devouring  fire."  Ex. 
14:17.  This  Fire  of  Glory— the  Holy  Ghost 
— shown  so  resplendent  from  Moses'  face, 
that  he  had  to  veil  himself  before  he  went 
into  the  camp  of  Israel.  The  literal  fire 
that  is  to  consume  the  wicked — burn  up  the 
chaff— is  one  thing,  and  the  fire  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  with  which  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  were  to  be  baptized,  is  quite  a  different 
thing. 

I  have  not  claimed  that  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  tor  the  remission  of 
sins,  but  to  bless  and  confirm  the  believers. 
They  went  everywhere  preaching,  the  Lord 
working  with  them,  confirming  the  word 
with  signs  following. 

He  made  a  great  ado  about  Jared's  inter- 
pretations, etc.  I  answered  that  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  previous  question.  There  is 
no  contradiction  or  inconsistency  in  the  nar- 
rative. The  last  of  the  Jaredite  kings  was 
contemporary  with,  and  associated  with, 
the  Mulekites,  and  they  in  tvirn  met  with 
the  Nephites  and  Jared's  interpreters  could 
in  a  very  natural  and  ordinary  way  have 
been  placed  in  the  hands  of  Mosiah. 

Page  507  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  referred 
to  last  night,  I  also  answered  on  a  previous 
evening  definitely.  The  things  the  brother 
of  Jaredsaw  were  not  to  be  revealed  until  af- 
ter the  Gentiles  should  repent,  after  Moroni 
hid  them  up.  They  have  not  as  yet  been 
translated.  They  were  translated  by  the 
Nephites,  however,  after  the  crucifixion, 
and  that  translation,  as  engraved  by  the 
Nephites,  was  hid  up  with  the  Book  of 
Mormon  by  Moroni. 

The  plates  of  brass  spoken  of  by  Lehi, 
page  11,  did  go  forth  among  his  posterity  ; 
are  now  in  existence,  as  has  been  testified 
of,  and  in  due  time  will  be  manifest  again 
to  his  posterity.  They  were  removed  from 
there  for  a  season,  because  they  sought  to 
destroy  them.  It  was  what  was  on  the 
plates  that  was  the  main  thing  that  was  to 
go  forth.  The  plates  themselves  are  now 
ift  the  care  of  one  of  Lehi's  descendants, 
the  angel  Moroni. 

.T  now  come  to  the  mystery  of  mysteries, 


that  has  never  been  matched  by  anything, 
save  it  were  hazel-witching. 

My  opponent  read  last  evening  fiom  Mrs. 
Eaton's  graphic  pen,  the  old  story  about 
Joseph  Smith,  Sen.,  digging  a  well,  once 
upon  a  time,  and  from  the  bottom  thereof, 
he  exhumed  a  baby's  foot.  Joe  was  on 
hand  as  usual,  and  snatched  it  from,  his 
father,  and  ran  off  peeping  for  money. 
Whether  his  father  ever  chastised  him  for 
this  impiety  is  not  stated.  But  my  oppo- 
nent was  particular  to  elaborate,  upon 
another  yarn,  wherein  it  was  claimed  that 
the  said  Joe  stole  this  baby's  foot  from  one 
of  Chase's  children,  and  went  off  hazel- 
witching  and  seeking  for  money.  So  says 
Mr  Chase,  per  my  opponent.  But  we  are 
informed  also  by  him  that  Miss  Chase  had 
a  baby's  foot  too,  and  could  see  equally 
well  with  Joe,  and  often  pointed  out  where 
money  was,  and  could  really  find  lost 
property.  She  was  a  Seeress  when  she  died 
just  a  few  years  ago.  Thus  we  have  been 
shown  that  this  wonderful  baby  had  at 
least  three  feet,  and  either,  when  looked 
upon,  would  reveal  hidden  mysteries.  What 
Joe  would  have  seen  and  revealed  had  he 
succeeded  in  stealing  that  entire  baby,  no 
mortal  will  likely  ever  know.  Anyway, 
Joe  got  the  baby's  foot  from  his  father,  ami 
stole  it  from  the  chase  family,  and  yet  Miss 
Chase  was  in  possession  of  the  baby's  foot, 
and  was  divining  on  all  occasions  when 
called  upon,  till  just  a  few  years  ago.  This 
nonsense  and  tomfoolery  Mr.  Braden  drinks 
all  in,  and  then  licks  out  his  tongue  for 
more  like  it.  Hence  he  goes  on,  and  not- 
withstanding he  has  labored  long  and  hard 
to  make  out  Sidney  Rigdon  the  real  author 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  to  prove  that 
he  used  "ignorant  Joe"  as  a  cat's  paw, 
while  he  strode  along  on  Ahasueras'  horse, 
yet  last  night  he  had  the  consummate 
audacity  to  charge  the  whole  Iraud  of  pro- 
phet-making on' poor  old  Mother  Smith, 
while  they  yet  lived  in  Vermont,  and  Joe 
Was  only  seven  years  old.  Was  the  old 
lady  Smith  and  Sydney  Rigdon  in  cahoot 
while  she  lived  in  Vermont  in  the  prophet- 
making  business?  She  to  raise  the  prophet, 
he  to  write  the  book?  But  my  opponent 
swallows  all  of  this  down,  and  it  looks  as 
reasonable  to  him,  and  so  he  yearns  for 
more  like  it.  There  is  nothing  about  the 
Latter  Day  Saints  faith  that  looks  reason- 
able to  him.  So  he  goes  on  ;  Joe  was  always 
to  be  found  at  corn  huskings  where  there 
was  plenty  of  whisky,  and  something  to 
gratify  his  wild,  reckless  and  voluptuous 
nature.  He  was  proverbial  for  his  Iaz3', 
thieving,  lying,  shirking,  drinking,  out- 
landish habits;  yet  his  mother  had  him 
drilled,  and  tutored,  and  inspired  so  com- 
pletely with  the  prophet  notion,  that  he 
appeared  as  calm  and  serene  as  a  minister, 
and  both  he  and  his  mother  had  the  as- 
tounding bad  habit  of  looking  people  square 
in  the  eyes,  all  the  time  wearing  the  air  of 
a  sober  deacon,  and  never  stooping  to 
trifling  things,  lest  the  people  might  not 
believe  that  he  was  Divinely  Inspired ; 
Seldom  known  to  laugh.  Have  you  got  any 


344 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


more  like  this,  Mr.  Braden?  It  is  so  won- 
derfully consistent  !  Almost  thou  per- 
suadest  me.  But  he  asks,  why  did  Joseph 
and  Oliver  have  to  ordain  each  other  after 
the  priesthood  was  conferred  by  the  angel  ? 
He  might  as  well  ask  why  acorns  do  not 
grow  on  briar  bushes  ;  or  why  Moses  laid 
his  hands  on  Joshua  after  the  Lord  had 
called  him ;  or  why  the  laying  on  of  hands 
is  to  precede  and  for  the  receiving  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  or  why  Aaron  was  clad  with 
a  robe  and  bonnet,  and  had  bells  on  his 
robe  and  wore  a  breastplate;  or  why  the 
Lord  did  not  write  on  metal  plates  instead 
of  stone,  so  that  when  Moses  got  mad  he 
could  not  have  broken  them  by  tossing 
them  upon  the  ground.  It  is  God's  order 
of  things,  that  is  all. 

He  says  that  the  Book  of  Covenants  states 
that,  "Zion  shall  not  be  moved  out  of  its 
place."  Is  it  moved,  Mr  Braden?  It  was 
to  remain,  "though  her  children  were  scat- 
tered." The  children  are  scattered,  but 
they  will  return  in  due  time  and  re-inhabit 
and  build  the  City  and  Temple  in  this  gen- 
eration. 

The  Nephites  were  not  exterminated 
as  claimed.  Many  of  them  joined  the 
Lamanites'  Standard.  Page  493,  Book  of 
Mormon . 

Concerning  the  objection  that  no  one  is  to 
be  forgiven  who  is  a  murderer,  John  says, 
"No  murderer  hath  eternal  life  abiding  in 
him."  In  the  Book  of  Covenants  and  New 
Testament  both,  reference  is  evidently  nad 
to  a  heartless,  malicious  and  wilful  murder- 
er. He  objects  to  the  use  of  the  names  Elias 
and  Elijah.  Elias  is  the  Greek  for  Elijah, 
(Hebrew),  and  Gabriel  is  the  nameassigned 
to  Elijah  as  an  angel ;  like  it  was  when  God 
covenanted  with  Abraham.  He  changed 
his  name  from  Abram  to  Abraham.  Jacob's 
to  Isreal ;  and  to  the  apostles,  Jesus  as- 
signed new  names.  There  is  no  contradic- 
tion in  the  Book  of  Covenants  in  the  use  of 
the  names  Elias,  and  Elijah.  Concerning 
the  objection  of  the  body  and  Spirit  being 
called  the  soul,  I  will  say  a  word.  The  same 
idea  is  held  in  the  Bible:  "Eight  souls 
were  saved  by  water."  "Breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life  and  man  became 
a  living  soul."  This  is  sufficient  upon  the 
eoul  criticism. 

Again,  Emma  Smith  never  saw  the  plates, 
only  when  covered  with  a  cloth.  In  this 
way  she  says  she  did,  and  handled  them. 
The  Book  does  not  say  that  there  should  be 
but  three  persons  who  should  see  them, 
but  that  there  should  only  be  three  who 
should  have  them  shown  them  by  the  pow- 
er of  God  and  the  hand  of  an  angel. 

My  opponent  could  make  some  strong 
points  doubtless,  if  he  was  permitted  to  rep- 
resent the  record  in  his  own  way  ;  but  even 
that  would  be  but  temporary.  The  very 
first  time  a  person  got  hold  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  and  began  to  compare  it  with  Bra- 
den's  pretended  statements,  he  would  be 
detected,  and  the  honest  investigator  would 
turn  away  in  disgust. 

Men  who  pretend  to  make  criticisms  upon 
the  works  -of  others,  should,  above  all 


things  else,  be, — 1.  Honest;  and  2.  Fair. 
In  this  way  only,  can  the  hearer  be  profited, 
and  a  discussion,  whether  religious,  or  po- 
litical, result  in  good  to  the  people. 

But  I  must  proceed  with  noticing  his  run- 
ning list  of  objections.  I  call  them  running, 
because  the  moment  he  undertakes  to  make 
one,  he  drops  it,  seemingly  afraid  of  the 
answer  I  shall  make,  and  jumps  at  some- 
thing else. 

It  has  been  asserted,  that  I  discard  all 
revelations  which  I  cannot  defend.  But 
did  he  tell  you  of  any  I  could  not  defend  ? 
Oh,  no.  When  they  come  to  a  contest,  he 
says  they  (our  elders)  discard  them.  There 
is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  affirm  and 
defend  here  all  that  the  church  believes  or 
has  ever  believed  and  taught.  But  he  asks 
what  do  I  do  with  the  revelations  printed 
in  the  Star,  Times,  and  Seasons,  Elders' 
•  Journals,  etc.?  They  are  the  same  as  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Covenants  ;  and  all  in 
there  with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  of  a 
private  nature,  (relating  to  individuals  and 
not  to  the  body  generally)  and  these  I  am 
ready  to  defend.  Here  is  the  trouble  with 
Braden.  He  wants  to  carry  the  idea  that 
whatever  is  contained  in  the  church  publi- 
cations it  is  the  same  as  revelation  to  us. 
This  is  a  false  assumption.  The  writings 
and  arguments  are  taken  for  what  they  are 
worth  when  compared  and  criticized  by  the 
accepted  standard  works  of  the  church,  and 
are  no  creed  for  us;  we  do  not  te'ievein 
men-made  creeds.  When  the  Lord  speaks 
we  are  bound  to  hear  and  obey,  but  we  are 
not  bound  to  hear  and  obey  before  we  know 
whether  it  is  the  Lord  talking  or  not.  No 
more  than  were  the  early  Saints  or  the 
Saints  of  the  first  century.  As  Paul  says, 
'•If  anything  is  given  by  'the  Spirit  to  one, 
let  the  others  judge."  Never  take  away  a 
man's  judgment  if  you  expect  to  do  him 
good,  even  in  so  particular  a  matter  as  of 
judging  upon  revelations,  or  influences  of 
the  Spirit.  He  next  makes  his  one  baptism 
argument  under  the  form  of  six  questions  ; 
the  6th  one  being,  "If  there  is  but  one  im- 
mersion is  not  that  one  by  water?"  The 
trouble  is  with  hist/;  upon  this  little  word 
the  authority  of  Campbell,  Scott  and  Stone 
was  found  to  be  resting,  and  the  little  word 
could  not  bear  up  the  load. 

"//"  there  Is  but  one  immersion,"  says 
Braden:  But  if,  there  is  a  baptism  of  the 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  then  that  settles  ef- 
fectually his,  "if  there  is  but  one."  I  have 
shown  you  that  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus,  in 
John  3:5 ;  and  Acts  1 :5.  Peter  in  Acts  2:38  ; 
Paul  in  I  Cor.  12:13;  Heb.  6:2  ;  and  Titus 
3:5,  all  taught  baptism  of  the  water  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  or,  of  the  Spirit,  and  does  he 
wish  me  to  now  take  his  "if  there  is  but 
one?" 

The  other  five  question  are  of  the  same 
kind,  and  I  have  answered  every  one  of 
them  in  my  argument  before  this. 

Again,  he  says  :  "No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time."  I  suppose  that  by  this,  he  is 
trying  to  find  some  contradictions  in  the 
Bible.  If  this  chaffy  stuff  is  to  be  termed 
objections,  I  can  find  him  five  hundred 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


345 


^jntradictions  in  the  Bible.  Gen.  32:30, 
Jacob  says,  "  I  have  seen  God  face  to  face." 
Exodus  24: 9,  10  and  11,  "Then  went  Moses 
and  Aaron,  Nadaband  Abihu,  and  seventy 
of  the  elders  of  Israel;  aud  they  saw  the 
God  of  Israel ;  and  there  was  under  his 
feet,  as  it  were  a  frame-work  of  a  sapphire 
stone,  and  as  it  were  the  body  of  heaven  in 
his  clearness." 

But,  Braden  says,  no  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time;  while  that  sacrilegious  boy, 
Smith,  said  he  saw  him.  The  trouble  is 
Braden  is  not  posted.  But  he  objects  to  the 
Book  of  Covenants,  because  it  makes  the 
Lord  to  take  notice  of  little  things ;  give 
directions  for  building  a  house;  told  them 
what  to  do  when  they  needed  funds  ;  where 
to  locate;  who  is  to  take  certain  positions 
and  offices  in  the  church,  etc.  What  an 
objection  this  is,  indeed,  for  a  Bible  man  to 
make !  All  through  the  Scriptures,  both 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  there  are 
many  instances  of  seeming  far  less  impor- 
tance, in  which  the  wisdom  of  God  is 
brought  to  bear,  and  which  may  be  more 
effectually  ridiculed,  if  that  manner  is  to 
be  taken  for  argument,  than  theinstances  of 
direct  Providence  in  the  Book  of  Doctrine 
and  Covenants. 

"The  direction  to  build  the  ark  and  to 
pitch  it  without  and  within;  to  make  it 
three  stories  high,  and  put  one  window  in 
it,"  Gen.  6;  is  a  good  example.  Take  the 
receipt  which  the  Lord  gives  to  Moses  by 
revelation,  for  making  ointment  for  the 
anointing  of  the  tabernacle,  the  priests, 
etc.  Nobody  is  permitted  to  make  this 
kind  of  oil,  but  Moses,  and  if  any  one  did, 
he  should  be  put  to  death.  "Whosoever 
compoundetli  any  like  it,  or  whosoever 
putteth  any  of  it  upon  a  stranger,  shall 
even  be  cut  off  from  his  people,"  Exodus 
30 : 23  to  33.  Moses  at  onoe  could  monopolize 
the  hair  oil  trade,  under  this  Revelation. 

Take  another:  — "  So  they  brought  the 
people  down  unto  the  water,  and  the  Lord 
said  unto  Gideon.  Every  one  that  lappeth 
of  the  water  with  his  tongue,  as  a  dog  lap- 
peth, him  shalt  thou  set  by  himself;  like- 
wise every  one  who  boweth  down  on  his 
knees  to  drink,"  Judges  7:  5.  This  was  to 
test  the  bravery  of  the  men,  and  of  the 
whole  number  who  went  down  to  drink, 
but  three  hundred  lapped  like  dogs,  and 
the  Lord  chose  these  for  his  army,  and  with 
these  ho  routed  the  Midianites'army,  so  the 
history  reads.  In  the  Savior's  ministry, 
he  and  his  disciples  ran  short  of  funds, 
and  the  Lord  directed  Peter  to  go  and 
catch  a  fish  and  get  a  coin  that  he  would  flnd 
in  the  fish's  mouth,  and  pay  the  tax.  And 
after  his  resurrection  he  directs  th«m 
where  to  cast  their  nets  in  order  to  gather 
the  fish.  And  the  Bible  critics,  come  to 
me,  and  say,  are  not  these  big  things  for 
the  Son  of  God  to  be  looking  after?  He 
who  possesses  all  power  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,  to  be  troubling  his  mind  with?  I 
have  to  rueet  all  such  silly  attacks  against 
the  Bible,  and  these  are  the  petty  criticisms 
brought  here  by  one  who  professes  to  be- 
lieve Mie  Bible,  with  which  to  try  to  over- 


throw the  truth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  truth  is, 
as  to  all  such  matters,  that  life  here 
is  made  up  of  littles.  God  confirms  men 
in  the  faith  of  himself  and  his  work  by 
the  impress  of  his  hand  at  times  in  these 
things  which  seem  to  be  of  little  account 
or  importance.  And  the  m  or  the  woman 
who  will  not  look  for  God's  hand  to  be 
manifest  in  these  things  which  seem  to 
be  (to  strangers  to  the  transaction)  of 
minor  worth,  may  expect  to  pass  through 
life  without  observing  the  hand  of  Deity 
in  anything.  Not  because  God  is  not  great 
in  his  attributes  and  his  work,  but  because 
man  is  a  frail  creature  and  weak  in  his  ways. 
We  must  learn  to  walk  before  we  can  run  ; 
and  to  know  our  letters  before  we  can  ex- 
pect to  take  a  lesson  in  geometry  ;  and  so 
in  the  dealing  of  God  with  us  ;  he  lends 
aid  and  comfort  where  such  is  required  and 
the  man  is  humble  enough  in  his  heart  to 
receive  it.  And  in  the  establishment  of  his 
church  and  the  superintending  of  his  work, 
he  will  deal  with  it  as  its  strength  and  the 
circumstances  demand;  so  it  has  been 
wherever  he  has  had  a  church. 

He  again  tries  to  make  it  appear  thai 
Smith  was  always  boosting  along  his  peo- 
ple with  false  promises  of  gain,  power, 
etc.,  in  this  world.  The  statement  is  abso- 
lutely the  reverse  of  the  facts  ;  he  always 
told  them  of  the  trials  in  the  way  to  an  ac- 
ceptable life  with  God  and  in  many  instances 
foretold  the  evils  the  church  would  fall  into 
and  the  consequences  of  the  same. 

He  predicts  in  Book  of  Covenants,  page 
199  and  285,  evil  to  come  upon  the  entire 
body  because  of  wickedness,  and  this  came 
two  years  afterwards  ;  and  on  page  147,  he 
foretells  his  own  death  ;  and  on  page 304  he 
predicts  the  overthrow,  or  rejection,  of 
the  entire  church.  And  yet,  these  enemies 
of  his  have  said  he  kept  his  people  together, 
through  flattery,  deceit  and  false  promises. 
In  September,  1831,  in  a  revelation,  is  fore- 
told his  death,  and  the  manner  of  it  to  wit: 
"Shall  fall  by  the  shaft  of  death,  like  a 
tree  that  is  smitten  by  the  vivid  shaft  of 
of  lightning."  Twelve  years  afterwards 
at  Carthage,  111.,  as  the  vivid  shaft  of  light- 
ning'smites  the  giant  tree,  so  death  overtook 
him  through  th»  missile  of  the  assassin's 
bullet,  and  though  as  Lincoln  and  Garfield 
he  was  struck  down  by  the  hands  of  the 
wretch  and  coward,  he  died  as  the  ancient 
martyrs,  because  of  his  hope  in  Christ,  and 
his  devotion  to  the  good  of  the  human  race. 
It  is  truth,  God's  word,  that  will  either 
exalt  or  condemn  us  at  the  last  day,  and  let 
no  one  imagine  that  his  ignorance  is  to 
cause  a  remission  of  his  sins  and  land  him 
within  the  pearly  gates.  "If  ye  continue  in 
my  words  ye  shall  be  my  disciples  indeed, 
and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth 
shall  make  you  free."  Not  on  account  of 
their  ignorance,  but  knowledge;  the  light 
of  the  Spirit.  "If  we  walk  in  the  light  as 
God  is  in  the  light,  we  shall  have  fellowship 
one  with  another,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  We  ab- 
solutely have  no  promise  offered  us  for 


S46 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KJGLLKY 


redemption  from  our  sins  on  account  of 
ignorance,  bur  we  must  walk  in  the  light. 
Yet,  every  objection  brought  against  tlie 
divine  work  of  the  boy  of  Manchester,  lias 
been  from  the  standpoint  tliut  he  claimed 


to  be  informed  upon  the  question  of  religion. 
And  if  he  was  a  teacher  sent  from  God  and 
knew  whereof  he  affirmed,  he  could   not 
have  been  otherwise,  than  in  the  light. 
(Tiiue  called.) 


MR.  BRADEN'S   FIFTH  SPEECH. 


GENTLEMTTN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMKX  : — Mr.  Kelley  has  denied  that 
there  ever  was  such  a  man  as  Thomas  P. 
Baldwin.  That  there  ever  was  such  an  offi- 
cer as  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Court;  that 
Thomas  P.  Baldwin  was  Judge  of  Wayne 
County  Court  in  1833.  We  rea'd  the  affida- 
vit of  S.  B.  Mclntyre,  a  lawyer  of  over 
thirty  years  practice  in  Palmyra,  and  a  res- 
ident of  Palmyra  for  fifty-six  years,  stat- 
ing— I.  There  was  such  a  man,  a  lawyer  in 
Palmyra,  stating  also  his  wife's  name,  and 
the  name  of  his  step-children  and  his  own 
child.  II.  That  he  was  Judge  from  1830  to 
1835,  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Court.  III. 
That  he  has  examined  his  commission 
as  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Court.  IV. 
That  he  has  seen  documents  in  the 
<'lerk's  office  that  he  signed  as  Judge  of 
Wayne  County.  We  offered  an  affidavit  of 
his  step-son  stating  there  was  such  a  man  ; 
that  he  married  his  mother,  giving  his 
daughter's  name,  date  of  his  death,  stating 
that  he  was  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Court 
from  1830  to  1835;  that  he  has  seen  his  com- 
mission as  such.  We  read  a  certificate  of 
the  very  man  who  answered  Kelley 's  letter 
explaining  how  he  made  the  mistake,  stat- 
ing that  the  records  show  that  T.  P.  Bald- 
win was  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Court; 
that  his  commission  as  such  is  before  him 
as  he  writes ;  stating  the  date  of  the  first 
trial  on  which  he  officiated  as  Judge  of 
Wayne  County  Court;  and  the  date  of  the 
lat  t  trial  on  which  he  officiated  as  such. 
Had  my  opponent  possessed  common  sense, 
lie  would  have  given  up.  But  with  a  stu- 
pidity that  is  miraculous,  he  arose  and 
stolidly  denied  that  there  was  such  a.  man  ; 
such  an  office,  and  that  there  was  such  a 
judge  of  Wayne  County  Court.  I  could 

Eity  my  opponent  if  his  lack  of  honesty  in 
is  acts  were  not  so  flagrant. 
His  letter  from  Whitrner  is  a  dodge. 
Whitmer  does  not  say  a  word  about  punc- 
tuation in  it.  That  is  dropped.  His  state- 
ment about  capital  letters  is  a  dodge.  Gil- 
bert stated  that  proper  names  began  with 
capitals  generally.  He  stated  that  sen- 
tences did  not.  Whitmer  says  that  the 
capital  letters  are  part  of  the  original  writ- 
ing. He  does  not  say  what  capital  letters. 
Will  Whitmer  lay  the  manuscript  before 


an  impartial  committee,  in  the  presence  of 
J.  H.  Gilbert,  and  attempt  to  show  that  the 
manuscript,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of 
Smith  and  Cowdery,  was  punctuated,  or 
that  its  sentences,  as  it  came  from  their 
hands,  were  commenced  with  capitals?  A  a 
to  Kelley's  attacks  on  Maj.  Gilbert's  char- 
acter, they  are.  beneath  contempt.  Maj. 
Gilbert  concluded  probably  that  persons 
who  would  falsify  his  language  are  not 
worthy  of  reply. 

He  attempts  to  bolster  up  Cowdery's  tes- 
timony to  the  Book  of  Mormon  by  denying 
that  he  ever  recanted  his  testimony.  In  a 
song  published  in  Mormon  works  in  1838-40 
occurs  this  doggerel : 

"  Or  prove  that  Christ  was  not  the  Lord 
"Because  that  Peter  cursed  and  swore, 
"  Or  Book  of  Mormon  not  his  word 
"Because  denied  by  Oliver"  (Olivorel!) 
If  Cowdery  never  repudiated  his  testi- 
mony, why  did  Mormons  in  their  sengs 
declare  that  he  did?  As  to  Whitmer's 
testimony,  we  have  shown  its  ridiculous 
character,  its  fabrications,  contradictions, 
and  falsehoods.  We  read  Smith's  denun- 
ciation of  him.  Smith's  statement  that  he 
was  excluded  from  the  Church  for  crime. 
That  he  plotted  robbery,  and  carried  on  the 
plot  by  lying.  The  act  of  exclusion  ia 
signed  by  Bigdon  and  83  other  Mormons, 
denouncing  him  for  lying,  counterfeiting, 
stealing,  and  being  connected  with  a  gang 
of  criminals  of  the  blackest  dye.  In  the 
Elders'  Journal,  No.  3  of  the  date  of  July, 
1838,  page  46,  is  an  official  document, 
adopted  by  the  Mormon  Church  in  the  Far 
West  excluding  David  Whitmer  and  Oliver 
Cowdery  for  embezzling  money  put  in  their 
hands  to  purchase  land  for  tao  Church. 
They  had  the  land  bought  for  the  Church, 
with  the  money  of  the  Church,  deeded 
to  themselves,  and  tried  to  compel  the 
Church  to  pay  them  several  times  the  price 
they  had  paid  for  it — even  when  bought 
with  the  money  of  the  Church  and  for 
the  Church.  Such  is  the  character  of 
Cowdery  and  Whitmer  according  to  the 
official  declaration  of  the  Mormon  Church, 
as  published  in  their  official  organ.  This  is 
Mormon  testimony  to  Whitmer's  character. 
We  read  the  statement  that  Whitmer  said 
that  he  saw  no  angel  but  a  Mr.  Angel.  He 
has  been  bought  up.  He  wants  to  be  leader 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DESATE. 


In  a  new  Mormon  faction.  His  family  have 
had  good  positions  given  to  them.  As  soon 
as  this  was  done  he  could  renew  his  testi- 
mony and  exaggerate  it  into  nonsense. 
Kelley  last  night  read  that  if  Joe  allowed 
any  one  to  see  what  he  found  he  would  be 
destroyed.  His  mother  says  she  saw  the 
breast-plate  and  the  interpreters,  and 
nobody  "  kilt."  Whitmer  says  he  saw  and 
handled  the  interpreters,  and  nobody 
"hurted."  Looked  through  them.  The 
Book  of  Mormon  says,  it  is  death  to  any 
one  who  looked  through  the  interpreters 
without  a  command.  Whitmer  is  living 
yet.  Joe  was  not  to  use  the  scheme  to  make 
money.  Did  not  he  die  worth  over  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars?  Was  not  he 
rich?  Did  not  he  make  money  out  of  it? 
The  angel  in  Revelations  did  not  restore 
the  Gospel ;  he  preached  what  had  never 
been  lost.  The  Spirit  of  Truth  is  in  the 
Church  now  ;  but  how?  Not  in  the  mirac- 
ulous power.  Zechariah,  in  vision  saw  a 
young  man  go  out  to  measure  Jerusalem, 
and  one  angel  said  to  another,  "Go  speak 
to  this  young  man."  That  means  Joe 
Smith,  because  he  was  a  young  man.  O, 
twaddle  !  Such  are  his  prophecies.  I  care 
not  how  he  reads  Isaiah  ix.  It  says  the 
remnant  of  Israel  shall  come  from  Assyria, 
not  Amerira.  1  Corinthians  xv.  says  the 
"natural"  was  first  the  "spiritual"  after- 
wards. Joe  interpolates  into  Genesis  a 
statement  that  the  spiritual  was  first,  the 
natural  afterwards.  Corinthians  does  not 
contradict  Genesis,  it  contradicts  what  Joe 
interpolates  into  Genesis.  Joe's  inspiration 
in  the  Book  of  Mormon  conflicts  with  inspir- 
ation in  the  Inspired  Translation.  But  the 
most  wonderful  thing  is  Kelley's  assertion 
that  Nephite  writers  used  originals,  that  dif- 
fered from  ours,  and  quoted  from  them.  We 
reply,  1.  Book  of  Mormon  copied  the  blun- 
ders of  King  James'  version  in  scores  of 
cases.  2.  There  never  were  any  Nephites. 
3.  There  never  was  any  original  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  except  Rigdon's  revamping  of 
Spaulding's manuscript.  In  quoting  1  John, 
ii:29,  my  apponent  read,  "But  the  anoint- 
ing which  you  have  received  of  him  abides 
in  you  and  you  need  not  that  any  one  teach 
you.  But  as  the  same  anointing  teaches 
you  all  things  and  is  truth" — he  saw  that 
it  contradicted  his  theory  and  taught  Camp- 
bellism,  for  it  taught  that  truth,  the  truth, 
taught  them  all  things.  He  deliberately 
changed  it,  and  read  "the  Spirit  of  truth 
is  the  Spirit  of  truth  and  is  no  lie,"  making 
nonsense,  for  if  one  is  "  Spirit  of  truth"  the 
other  ought  to  be,  and  is  "no  Spirit  of  lie." 
His  own  passage  proves"  that  it  is  the  truth 
and  not  the  miraculous  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  teaches  believers  all  things.  I 
did  not  ask  why  the  Book  of  Abraham  had 
no  witnesses,  but  why  the  parchment 
revelation  of  John  had  none.  It  caps  the 
climax  of  cheek  and  folly,  when  Kelley 
gravely  tells  us  that  he  has  examined  the 
two  translations  of  the  papyrus,  that  of  the 
French  scholar,  and  the  fraud  of  Joe  Smith, 
called  the  "  Book  of  Abraham,"  pretending 
to  be  a  translation  made  by  inspiration  ;  and 


he,  yes  hf,  Kelley,  that  knows  as  much  of 
Egyptian  hieroglyphics  as  he  does  of  the 
language  spoken  in  Jupiter — has  decided 
that  Joe  was  right  and  the  French  scholar 
was  wrong!  What  next! 

The  Holy  Ghost  does  say  there  is  but  one 
immersion  to  Christians,  just  as  there  is  one 
God — one  faith.  John  does  say  that  the 
baptism  in  water  is  one  baptism  and  the 
baptism  in  Spirit  another  baptism.  There 
are  two  elements  and  two  baptisms.  The 
one  baptism  in  the  Church  is  in  water. 
Holy  Spirit  baptism  is  not  in  the  Church  or 
a  baptism  to  Christians.  Kelley  may  give 
the  lie  direct  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  long  as 
he  pleases.  It  stands  there.  I  read  Joe 
Smith's  idea  of  God.  If  he  was  Brighamite 
I  read  Brighamite  ideas  of  God.  I  did  nob 
read  a  word  from  an  Utah  Mormon.  I  read 
what  was  said  in  Nauvoo  and  published  in 
Nauvoo  and  before  Joe's  death.  I  again 
denounce  as  a  deliberate  untruth  the  state- 
ment that  I  say  that  nobody  can  learn  any- 
thing about  God.  I  say  they  can  learn 
through  his  word.  When  pressed  with  the 
demand  for  a  miracle  my  opponent  declares 
there  is  no  converting  power  in  miracles. 
This  is  what  I  have  contended,  and  he  has 
denounced  it  as  repudiating  the  power  of 
God.  He  says  the  law  of  the  Lord  converts. 
That  is  what  I  have  contended,  and  he  has 
denounced  it  as  repudiating  the  power  of 
God's  Spirit,  and  talked  of  the  dead  letter. 
But  the  most  amusing  thing  was  when  he 
forgot  that  he  had  said  that  the  word  of 
God  converts,  and  asserted  that  the  Gospel 
alone  could  not  be  God's  power,  for  if  it 
were,  if  a  man  read  it  he  would  be  converted 
whether  he  believed  it  or  not!  That  caps 
the  climax  of  Mormon  wisdom.  It  stands 
alone  in  its  grandeur.  But  he  has  found 
two  miracles  :  I.  A  Mormon  girl  predicted 
the  destruction  of  Pekin  six  months  before 
Ryder  read  it  in  the  paper.  When  we 
remember  that  the  destruction  was  months 
before  Ryder  read  it  in  the  paper,  the 
miracle  becomes  baseless.  Show  that  Mor- 
mon leaders  did  not  know  it  before  the 
prediction,  for  months  had  elapsed  between 
the  prediction  so  called  and  the  event. 
II.  Healing  Mrs.  Johnson.  I  can  cite  scores 
of  cases  where  physicians  have  done  a* 
much  as  Smith  did.  By  strong  will  and 
mesmeric  control  they  have  caused  persons 
to  use  what  were  supposed  to  be  helpless 
limbs;  and  if  it  was  mere  lack  of  use 
that  ailed  them,  the  disease  having  left, 
they  continued  to  use  them.  An  incident 
happened  in  Hubbard,  Trumbull  County, 
the  same  year  that  Smith  healed  Mrs 
Johnson,  that  beat  Smith  all  hollow.  A 
man  who  had  been  bed-ridden  from  rheu- 
matism, got  so  that  he  could  hobble  with 
crutches.  He  went  on  crutches  three  years. 
One  day  in  passing  a  nest  of  young  pigs, 
he  punched  one  with  the  spike  in  the  end 
of  one  of  his  crutches.  It  squealed,  and 
the  old  sow,  a  monstrous,  ferocious  brute, 
started  for  him,  open-mouthed,  uttering 
fearful  sounds  of  rage.  He  threw  to  one 
side  his  crutches,  ran  like  a  quarter-hors«> 
to  a  fence  and  dashed  over  it,  and  never 


343 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


used  a  crutch  again  till  the  day  of  his  death. 
That  old  sow  beat  Joe  all  hollow.  She 
healed  two  legs.  He  healed  only  one  arm. 
Both  were  healed  in  the  same  way,  a  shock 
compelling  the  use  of  what  only  needed  an 
effort  to  use. 

Having  examined  the  revelations  of  Mor- 
monism we  propose  now  to  inquire  if  the 
authors  and  surroundings  were  befitting 
the  "fullness  of  the  Gospel" — the  last  and 
highest  dispensation  vouchsafed  to  men. 
God  chose  a  Noah,  an  Abraham,  a  Moses, 
a  Samuel,  a  John  the  Baptist,  a  Paul,  and 
gave  Christianity  to  the  world  by  Hi*  Son. 
After  giving  Christianity  by  his  Son  be 
would  not  select  a  Baalam,  a  Saul,  king  or 
Israel,  a  Jonah  or  a  Caiaphas  to  give  to  the 
world  the  ''fullness  of  the  Gospel."  Mrs. 
Eaton,  wife  of  Dr.  Horace  Eaton  who  was 
for  nearly  forty  years  pastor  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church  'in  Palmyra,  a  lady  of  the 
highest  character  who  knew  intimately  the 
acquaintance,  schoolmates  and  associates  of 
the  Smiths,  declares : 

"As  far  as  Mormonism  was  connected  with  Its  reputed 
author  Joseph  Smith,  always  called  Joe  Smith,  it  had 
its  origin  in  the  brain  and  heart  of  a  deceitful,  ignorant 
mother.  Joe  Smith's  mother  moved  in  the  lower  walks 
of  life,  but  she  had  a  kind  of  mental  power  which  her 
eon  shared.  With  both,  the  imagination  was  the  com- 
manding faculty .  It  was  vain  but  vivid.  To  it  were 
subordinated  conscience,  reason  and  truth.  Both 
mother  and  son  were  noted  for  a  habit  of  extravagant 
assertion.  They  would  look  a  listener  full  in  the  eye 
and  without  confusion  or  blanching  they  would  manu- 
facture startling  statements,  reciting  stories,  the  warp 
and  woof  of  which  was-falsehood." 

Let  any  one  read  that  mass  of  lies,  ridic- 
ulous yarns  and  tomfoolery,  Mrs.  Smith's 
Life  of  Joe,  and  they  will  conclude  that 
Mrs.  Eaton  draws  it  mildly  in  her  state- 
ment. 

"Was  an  inconsistency  pointed  out,  nothing  daunted 
a  subterfuge  was  always  at  hand.  One  old  man  who 
knew  them  said  to  me,  'You  could  not  face  them  down, 
they  would  lie  and  stick  to  it.'  Mrs.  Smith  used  to  go 
to  the  houses  of  the  village  and  do  family  washings. 
But  if  the  articles  were  left  to  dry  on  the  lines,  and  were 
not  secured  by  their  owners  before  midnight,  the 
washer  was  often  the  winner.  In  these  depredations 
she  was  assisted  by  her  bora  who  favored,  in  like 
manner,  poultry  yards  and  grain  bins.  Her  son  Joe 
never  worked  save  at  'chopping  bees'  and  raisings  and 
then  whiskey  was  the  impetus  and  reward.  The 
mother  of  the  high  priest  of  Mormonism  was  super- 
stitious to  the  last  degree." 

Any  one  who  reads  her  ridiculous  stuff  in 
her  Life  of  Joe  will  see  that  this  statement 
is  literally  true. 

"The  very  air  she  breathed  was  full  of  familiar 
spirits  that  peeped  and  wizards  that  muttered.  She 
turned  many  a  penny  by  tracing  in  the  lines  of  the  open 
palm  the  fortune  of  the  inquirer.  All  ominous  signs 
were  heeded.  No  work  was  commenced  on  Friday. 
The  moon  over  the  left  shoulder  portended  a  calamity. 
The  breaking  of  a  mirror,  death.  Even  in  Vermont, 
before  moving  to  New  York,  while  Joe  was  a  child, 
Mrs.  Smith's  mind  was  made  up  that  he  should  be  a 
prophet.  The  weak  father  agreed  that  Joe  was  the 

genus"  of  the  family  and  would  be  a  prophet." 

We  have  narrated  already  that  Joe's 
father  and  mother  were  foremost  among 
the  fanatical  followers  of  a  pretender  in 
Vermont  who  claimed  miraculous  powers 
and  to  be  a  Messiah.  This  suggested  to 
Mrs.  Smith  the  idea  of  making  Joe  a 
prophet. 

"  So  it  was  established  that  Joe  wai  to  be  a  prophet 
To  such  an  extent  did  the  mother  impress  this  idea 
upon  the  boy  that  all  the  instincts  of  childhood  were 
repressed.  He  rarely  laughed  or  smiled,  his  looks  and 


thoughts  were  downward  bent  He  rarely  engaged  in 
demonstrHtions  of  fun,  since  they  would  not  be  in  keep- 
ing  with  the  professed  dignity  of  his  exalted  avocation 
His  mother  aided  and  inspired  him  in  every  scheme  ot 
duplicity  and  cunning.  All  acquainted  with  the  facts, 
agree  that  the  evil  spirit  of  Mormonism  first  dwelt  in 
Joe  Smith's  mother.  Bad  books  had  much  to  do  with 
the  origin  of  Mormonism.  Joe  could  read,  he  could 
not  write.  His  two  standard  volumes  in  childhood 
were  the  'Autobiography  of  Stephen  Burroughs,'  the 
clerical  scoundrel,  whose  career  he  so  closely  imitated, 
and  the 'Autobiography  of  Kidd,  the  Pirate.1  In  later 
boyhood  or  early  manhood,  he  was  a  great  reader  of 
the  Koran,  so  like  in  some  respects  his  own  fraud,  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  He  was  a  great  admirer  of  Moham- 
med. He  read  Paine' s  'Age of  Reason,"  and  was  a  glib 
talker  of  its  infidel  vulgarity.  So  Mormonism  began 
in  a  compound  of  superstition,  infidelity,  and  villainy. 

"In  1823  while  his  father  was  digging  a  well  for  Wil- 
lard  Chase,  a  stone  of  cloudy  quartz,  sinaularly  resemb- 
ling a  child's  foot  was  thrown  out  Joe,  who  was  loaf- 
ing around,  stole  this  stone  from  Mr.  Chase's  children. 
This  stone  became  the  acorn  of  the  Mormon  oak.  It 
was  the  famous  peep-stone  of  the  Palmyra  ^eer.  The 
Urim  and  Thummim  of  Mormonism,  with  which  Joe 
did  most  certainly  divine.  Instructed  by  his  mother 
he  immediately  set  up  a  claim  of  miraculous  power." 

Mrs.  Smith  afterwards  tried  to  get  a  sin- 
gular stone  from  a  neighbor's  children  to 
use  herself. 

"In  a  kneeling  position,  with  a  bandage  over  his 
eyes— so  luminous  was  the  light  without  it— with  the 
stone  in  a  large  white  stove  pipe  hat,  and  this  hat  in 
front  of  his  face,  Joe  saw  things  unutterable.  He  could 
reveal  where  stolen  property  could  be  found,  for  who 
ought  to  know  so  well  as  he,  and  his  family.  He  could 
tell  where  wandering  animals  were,  for  the  loafing  hab- 
its of  the  family  enabled  them  to  know.  Soon  he  saw 
caskets  of  gems,  pots  of  gold,  hid  by  Spaniards,  and 
his  favorite  hero,  Capt.  Kidd.  (One  can  see  where  the 
idea  of  buried  treasure  originated— in  reading  the  tale 
of  Kidd's  buried  treasures.)  Untold  wealth  was  in 
neighboring  woods  and  fields.  Digging  became  the 
order  of  the  night,  and  sleep  the  order  of  the  day. 
Father  and  brothers,  vagabonds,  neighbors,  all  who 
could  be  hired  with  cider,  strong  drink,  or  deluded 
with  extravagant  lying  promises,  were  organized  into 
a  digging  phalanx.  They  sallied  forth  in  the  darkness, 
a  gang  of  loafing,  worthless  men,  accompanied  with  a 
gang  of  low,  worthless,  lewd  women.  Solemn  cere- 
monies prefaced  the  work.  Not  a  sod  was  turned  un- 
til Joe's  mystic  wand,  the  witch  hazel  rod,  guided  by 
the  sacred  stone,  pointed  out  the  spot.  Entire  silence 
was  one  condition  of  success.  When  hours  of  digging 
had  passed  away,  and  the  answering  thud  on  the 
priceless  pot  or  chest,  was  about  to  break  on  the  ear, 
some  one  always  spoke  and  broke  the  spell,  and  the 
treasures  were  spirited  away,  and  had  to  be  found  by 
magic  rites,  and  dug  for  again.  Thus  matters  went  on 
for  several  years." 

The  operations  of  the  gang  extended  from 
Palmyra  to  Harmony,  in  Pennsylvania,  and 
Hartwicke,  Otsego  county,  New  York,  the 
extreme  points  being  over  one  hundred 
miles  apart. 

"Nearly  every  farm  in  Smith's  neighborhood  had 
several  holes  in  it,  that  the  gang  dug.  Many  can  be 
seen  to-day.  Sensible  people  paid  no  attention  to  them 
except  to  comment  with  disgust  Lovers  of  the  mirac- 
ulous, however,  commented  and  talked.  The  excava- 
tions were  visited.  The  newspapers  took  the  matter  up 
and  ridiculed  it.  All  this  added  to  the  notoriety  of  the 
Manchester  seer,  and  his  stolen  peep  stone." 

Pomeroy  Tucker  of  Palmyra,  New  York, 
who  knew  the  Smith's  from  the  time  they 
came  to  New  York,  in  1815,  until  they  left 
in  1830;  and  who  knew  Joe  intimately, 
states  that  Joe  Smith,  Senior,  ran  a  little 
beer  shop  in  Palmyra,  for  a  year  or  two, 
and  then  squatted  on  a  piece  of  land  belong- 
ing to  some  minor  heirs.  The  Smith's  did 
but  little  in  the  way  of  clearing,  fencing  or 
tilling.  They  erected  a  hovel,  and  then 
some  additional  hovels  as  out  houses.  Their 
farming  was  done  in  a  slovenly,  half-way, 
profitless  manner.  They  eked  out  a  living 
by  selling  cord  wood,  black  ash  baskets, 


THE    BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


349 


birch  brooms,  maple  sugar,  and  cakes  and 
root  beer,  on  public  days,  like  the  Indians 
on  the  reservation  near  them.  Most  of 
their  time  was  spent  in  trapping  musk  rats, 
fishing,  hunting,  digging-out  vvoodchucks, 
and  loafing  around  stores  and  shops  in  the 
village.  Joe  usually  lead  in  all  this,  never 
doing  any  of  the  labor  himself. 

This  idleness  was  noticed  by  neighbors, 
who  coupled  with  it  loss  of  property,  and 
became  more  careful  about  their  cribs  and 
coops.  Their  neighbors  regarded  them  as 
an  illiterate,  whiskey-drinking,  shiftless, 
irreligious  people,  Joe  being  the  laziest  and 
most  worthless  of  the  lot.  From  twelve  to 
twenty,  he  was  known  as  a  dull-eyed,  flaxen 
haired,  prevaricating  boy,  noted  only  for 
his  indolent,  vagabondish  character,  and 
his  habits  of  exaggeration,  and  untruthful- 
ness.  Taciturnity  was  among  his  character- 
istic idiosyncrasies,  and  he  seldom  spoke 
to  anyone  outside  of  his  intimate  associates, 
except  when  first  addressed  by  another ; 
and  then,  in  consequence  of  his  extrava- 
gancies of  statement,  his  word  was  received 
with  least  confidence  by  those  who  knew 
him  best.  He  could  utter  themost  palpable 
exaggerations,  marvellous  absurdities  with 
the  most  apparent  gravity  and  sincerity. 
He  nevertheless  evinced  the  rapid  develope- 
mentof  a  thinking,  evil-brewing,  plodding, 
mental  composition,  largely  given  to  the 
invention  of  low  cunning  schemes  of  mis- 
chief and  deception,  and  false  and  myster- 
ious pretensions.  In  his  mental  composi- 
tion, secretiveness  and  amativeness  were 
enormous,  and  conscientiousness  was  left 
out.  Tucker  describes  Joe's  reading  as 
Mrs.  Eaton  describes  it.  He  adds  that  he 
used  to  dilate  on  the  prophecies,  when  in 
the  presence  of  his  ignorant  superstitious 
associates,  and  Jthat  his  explanations 
were  often  disgusting  and  blasphemous. 
He  says,  that  he  contended  that  all  religions 
were  delusions,  and  the  Bible  a  fable. 
This  agrees  with  the  statement  of  Dr.  John 
Stafford,  a  schoolmate,  who  says  he  was  a 
great  reader  and  admirer  of  Paine,  and  an 
open  talker  of  his  infidelity.  Tucker 
relates  the  money-digging  folly  and  knav- 
ery as  Mrs.  Eaton  describes  it.  To  this  we 
add  the  statement  of  fifty-one  citizens  of 
Palmyra,  and  they  include  the  best  people 
of  Palmyra :  — 

"  December  4, 1833. 

"  We  the  undersigned  have  been  acquainted  with 
the  Smith  family  for  a  number  of  years,  while  they 
reside  i  near  this  place,  and  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
saying  that  we  consider  them  destitute  of  that  moral 
character,  which  ought  to  entitle  them  to  the  confi- 
dence of  any  community.  They  were  particularly 
famous  for  visionary  projects,  spent  mnch  time  in  dig- 
gmg  for  money  which  they  pretended  was  hid  in  the 
earth,  and  to  this  day  large  excavations  may  be  seen 
in  the  earth,  not  far  from  their  residence,  where  they 
used  to  spend  their  time  digging  for  hidden  treasures. 
Joseph,  senior,  and  his  son  Joseph,  were  in  particular 
considered  destitute  of  moral  character,  and  addicted 
to  vicious  habits.  In  reference  to  all  with  whom  we 
are  acquainted,  who  have  embraced  Mormonism,  from 
this  neighborhood,  we  are  compelled  to  say,  that  they 
are  visionary,  and  most  of  them  destitute  of  moral 
character,  and  without  influence  in  the  community, 
and  this  may  account  for  their  being  allowed  to  go  on 
with  their  imposture  unnoticed.  It  was  not  supposed 
that  any  of  them  were  possessed  of  sufficient  character 
or  influence,  to  make  any  one  believe  in  their  book,  or 


sentiments,  and  we  know  not  of  a  single  individual  In 
this  vicinity,  who  puts  the  least  confidence  in  their 
pretended  revelations." 

Eleven  citizens  of  Manchester,  and  most 
of  them  schoolmates  of  Joe  Smith,  signed 
this  statement : 

•'.'uV?th^  un<Jer8igned,  being  personally  acqufli->ted 
with  the  family  of  Joseph  Smith,  Senior;  with  n  >m 
the  celebrated  Golden  Bible  originated,  state  that  tney 
were  not  only  a  lazy,  indolent  set  of  men,  but  they  wera 
also  intemperate,  and  their  word  was  not  depended 
on,  and^that  we  are  truly  glad  to  dispense  with  their 

Peter  Ingersoll  testifies  to  the  old  man's 
lies  and  manoeuvres  to  dupe  him.  He  tells 
us  how  Joe's  father-in-law  upbraided  him 
wif,h  tears,  for  stealing  his  daughter,  and 
with  his  vicious  worthless  life,  and  that 
Joe  confessed  that  all  of  his  use  of  the  stone 
Avas  a  lying  fraud  and  promised  to  reform. 
He  tells  also  how  Joe  told  him  after  he  be- 
gan to  tell  that  he  had  found  the  plates 
that  it  was  all  a  hoax,  but  he  had  got  the 

d d  fools  fixed,  and  he  would  carry  out 

the  fun. 

William  Stafford  testifies  to  the  lies  and 
the  yarns  of  the  Smith's  about  caves  full  of 
gold  and  precious  articles  and  how  they  dug 
for  them.  He  tells  of  the  tomfoolery  of 
old  Joe  and  young  Joe  in  digging.  At  last 
they  got  him  to  let  them  have  a  black 
wether,  a  very  fat  one,  to  use  in  their  tom- 
foolery. They  cut  its  throat,  and  then  led 
it  around  in  a  circle,  and  then  dug  but 
failed.  The  Smiths,  however,  had  mutton 
without  stealing  it.  Willard  Chase  testi- 
fies to  the  worthlessness  and  lies  of  the 
Smiths,  and  their  gang  ;  and  to  the  lies  and 
tricks  of  young  Joe,  in  particular.  P.  Chase 
testifies  that  they  were  an  intemperate, 
lying,  worthless  set.  That  they  scarcely 
ever  told  two  stories  alike  in  regard  to  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  David  Stafford  testifies 
that  Joseph  Smith,  sen.,  was  a  liar,  a 
drunkard  and  a  thief;  and  that  Joe,  jun., 
was  like  him.  He  testifies  to  seeing  them 
return  from  stealing  excursions  with  stolen 
mutton.  Barton  Stafford  testifies  to  Joe's 
getting  drunk,  and  having  his  shirt  torh  off 
of  him,  and  his  wife  leading  him  home,  af- 
ter he  had  pretended  he  had  found  his 
golden  Bible.  Henry  Harris  testifies  that 
Joe's  oath  was  rejected  by  a  jury  as  un- 
worthy of  belief  and  that  the  whole  set 
were  intemperate  and  liars  and  worthless 
money  diggers.  Mrs.  Abigail  Harris  testi- 
fies to  old  Mrs.  Smith's  lies  and  tricks  to 
get  money,  and  about  the  Gold  Bible.  Ros- 
well  Nichols  testifies  to  their  lies,  dis- 
honesty, and  the  tricks  of  the  Smiths. 
Joshua  Stafford  testifies  to  the  same. 
Joseph  Capron  tells  of  their  lies,  tricks  and 
tomfooleries. 

To  this  might  be  added  the  testimony  of 
the  people  in  Susquehanna  county,  'Pa. 
where  Joe  lived  while  pretending  to  trans- 
late, telling  of  his  lies,  his  profanity,  and 
trying  to  seduce  his  hired  girl,  his  declara- 
tion that  adultery  was  no  crime. 

In  1880  William  Bryant  testified:  "I 
knew  Joe  Smith  personally  to  some  extent. 
I  saw  him  frequently.  I  knew  well  his 
reputation.  " 
loose  in 


i  irequentiy.  i  Knew  well  his 
ion .  He  was  a  lazy,  drinking  fellow, 
his  habits  in  every  way."  Danford 


850 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Booth  says,  "Smith's  reputation  was  bad." 
Orrin  Bead,  "I  knew  the  Smith's,  but  did 
not  associate  with  them  ;  they  were  too  low 
to  associate  with.  There  was  no  truth  in 
them."  Samantha  Payne  testifies: 

"She  was  a  schoolmate  of  Smith.  His  reputation 
wnsbad;  he  was  regarded  aa  a  worthless,  shiftless 
fellow,  a  braggadocio  and  a  blackguard.  The  mother 
of  Joseph  Smith  was  regarded  as  a  thief  by  her  neigh- 
bors. She  was  exceedingly  superstitious  and  addicted 
to  lying,  as  were  all  of  the  family.  She  once  fame  to 
my  mother  to  get  a  stone  the  children  had  found,  of 
curious  shape.  She  wanted  to  use  it  as  a  peepstone. 
Mother  would  not  trust  her  to  look  around  the  house 
for  it.  The  Smith's  dug  for  money  on  nearly  every 
farm  for  miles  around ;  their  excavations  can  be  seen 
to-day.  Some  are  on  the  farm  on  which  I  now  live. 
The  digging  was  done  at  night  with  most  absurd 
superstitious  acts.  It  was  done  by  a  gnng  of  men  and 
women  of  low  reputation.  They  told  runny  absurd 
•to rics  about  it.  After  Smith  came  back  from  Penn- 


sylvarHn  his  followers  dng  a  cave  In  a  hillside  not  far 
from  here.  They  conducted  the  work  of  getting  up 
Mormon  ism  in  it.  I  was  in  it  once.  It  can  be  seen  to- 
day. The  present  owner  of  the  farm,  Mr.  Miner,  dug 
out  the  cave,  which  had  fallen  In.  The  cave  hart  a 
large,  heavy  plank  door  and  a  padlock  on  it.  The 
neighbors  broke  it  open  one  night,  and  found  in  it  a 
barrel  of  flour,  some  mutton,  some  sheep  pelts,  and 
two  sides  of  leather." 

Ezra  Pierce  testifies  to  the  digging  for 
money,  their  lying  and  laziness,  and  the 
low  gang  that  were  engaged  in  it.  Dr. 
Mclntyre,  who  was  their  physician,  testi- 
fies that  Joseph  Smith,  senior,  was  a  drunk- 
ard, a  liar  and  a  thief,  and  his  house  a 
perfect  brothel.  That  Joe  got  drunk,  stole 
sugar,  got  beaten  for  it,  and  told  the  doctor 
who  dressed  his  bruises  that  he  had  a  fight 
with  the  devil.  Yea,  verily  he  had! 


MR.  KELLEY'S  SIXTH   SPEECH; 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — The  consummation  of  the 
offense  of  Joseph  Smith  in  the  minds  of  his 
opposers  was,  and  is,  that  he  was  an  un- 
learned boy.  Was  not  reared  in  their  theo- 
logical institutions.  What  right  has  this 
man  to  know  anything?  they  reasoned.  It 
is  the  old  story  which  the  self-wise  could 
not  understand  in  the  first  age  of  Christi- 
anity. "How  knoweth  this  man  letters 
having  never  learned  ?"  This  is  the  thought 
when  fully  brought  out:  How  did  Joseph 
Smith  know  so  much  when  he  had  never 
been  to  school?  Had  not  attended  our  col- 
lege? Why,  they  say,  he  even  pretended 
to  translate  the  Bible;  our  Bible.  This 
perfect  book.  Oh !  what  sacrilege.  The 
rascal !  Now,  my  friends,  I  want  your  atten- 
tion for  a  moment  while  I  expose  this  hypo- 
critical cant,  so  commonly  indulged  in  by 
our  opposers.  In  the  first  place  let  me  ask 
you,  what  made  this  our  Bible  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  other  people?  Was  it  given  to  us? 
No;  all  of  you  know  that  there  is  not  even 
a  single  Gentile  writer  or  writing  included 
within  its  pages.  It  contains  God's  will  as 
revealed  to  the  Jews,  and  hence  the  Jewish 
Bible,  if  belonging  to  any  particular  class  ; 
as  the  prophet  Ezekiel  declared,  "Thestick 
of  Ju(tah."  Ezek.  37:19.  We  received  it  as 
handed  down  after  the  time  when  they  were 
scattered  as  a  nation,  and  have  tried  by  our 
wise  men  and  scholars  to  translate  it  from 
their  languages,  the  Hebrew  and  Greek, 
into  ours.  But  in  doing  this  our  scholars 
do  not  agree  as  to  many  things,  absolutely 
disagree,  and  have  been  warring  for  years  ; 
not  only  upon  the  translation  from  the  orig- 
inal, but  actually  as  to  what  in  fact  was  or 
is  original.  And  not  only  as  to  words,  but 
sentences;  verses;  entire  books.  And  there 


has  not  only  been  a  revision  of  the  transla- 
tion into  our  language,  but  of  the  Greek 
text  itself.  The  oldest  manuscripts  extant 
are  only  referred  back  to  the  fourth  century 
by  scholars,  unless  we  accept  the  claim 
made  for  a  few  of  the  New  Testament  writ- 
ings, the  Sinaitic,  discovered  less  than  forty 
years  ago,  which  itis  claimed  may  be  traced 
back  to  the  beginning  of  the  third  century. 
As  to  these  originals  there  is  a  disagree, 
ment  in  many  things.  St.  Jerome,  in  his 
commentary  on  the  40th  chapter  of  Ezekiel 
says:  "When  we  translate  the  Hebrew 
words  into  Latin  we  are  sometimes  guided 
by  conjecture;1'  and  he  makes  frequent 
mention  of  the  additions,  corrections  and 
subtractions  made  in  the  version  of  the 
Septuagint  by  Origin.  Again  he  says  :  "It 
is  mere  superstition  to  assert,  as  some  authors 
do,  that  the  Hebrew  text  which  we  have  at 
present  is  not  corrupted  in  any  place,  and 
that  there  is  no  fault,  nor  any  thing  left  out, 
and  that  we  must  indisputably  follow  it  at 
all  times."  Dupin,  in  his  church  history, 
speaking  of  the  differences  found  to  exist 
in  the  original  manuscripts,  says:  "  There 
are  differences  in  the  punctuation,  about 
the  consonants,  and  \vho\ewords  and  verses, 
which  show  that  let  them  be  never  so  dili- 
gent, it  is  impossible  but  some  faults  will 
slip  in,  either  in  the  copying  or  printing  of 
a  work."  And  then  it  is  charged  that  the 
boldness  of  some  transcribers  of  theseorigi- 
nalswassuch  that  they  "ventured  to stri ke 
out,  ADD,  or  change  some  words  which  they 
thought  necessary  to  be  omitted,  added  or 
changed." 

The  original  manuscripts  were  tran- 
scribed and  handed  down  by  the  same  per- 
sons whom  Braden  termed  "Papists,"  and 
refused  to  receive  their  plain  historical 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


851 


statements  as  evidence  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  laying  on  of  hands  was  practiced  and 
preached  by  the  apostles,  and  Iranded  down 
by  exaiuples  of  practice  to  the  second  and 
third  centuries  thereafter.  Is  it  enough 
for  him  to  answer  these  plain  historical 
facts  by  simply  charging  them  with  Pa- 
pacy? It  is  not  a  fact  in  the  first  place  that 
Papacy,  as  it  is  commonly  understood,  then 
existed  ;  but  if  it  did,  it  would  likely  be  as 
proper  to  look  to  it  for  a  correct  history  of 
2>ractices  in  the  church  as  for  a  correct  his- 
tory of  the  teachings  in  the  church  which 
must  come  through  the  same  parties.  Yet 
li  ^  gets  his  perfect  laiv,  the  constitution,  the 
New  Testament,  through  this  papal  line  as 
it.  is  termed.  And  to  prove  his  New  Testa- 
.lieut  is  the  perfect  law  he  quotes  James 
1:25,  "But  whoso  looketh  into  the  perfect 
law  of  liberty,"  etc.  Why  does  he  say 
this  perfect  law  was  the  New  Testament  as 
delivered  by  the  apostles?  Does  he  not 
know  that  much  of  the  New  Testament  was 
not  yet  written?  This,  as  I  have  before 
shown,  was  in  the  year  A.  D.  60.  Long 
before  the  gospel  of  Luke  was  written  ; 
I  e fore  the  letters  to  Timothy,  Titus,  the 
<Jv>lossians,  the  Hebrew  churches,  the  2nd 
and  3rd  Epistles  of  Peter,  the  Epistles  of 
John,  of  Jude  and  the  Revelation  were 
ever  in  existence,  or  even  thought  of,  per- 
haps, and  yet  it  is  held  up  to  this  audience 
to  show  the  law  was  perfect  in  the  sense, 
that  God  would  give  no  more  revelations 
to  the  human  family.  Why?  The  Psalm- 
ist, as  I  have  quoted  to  you,  said  hundreds 
of  years  before  this,  "The  law  of  the  Lord 
is  perfect  converting  the  soul."  Did  he 
mean  that  God  would  for  that  reason  speak 
no  more  unto  the  human  family,  neither  iu 
the  1st,  2nd  or  3rd  century?  Not  at  all. 
But  that  God  is  perfect  and  his  law  must 
be  perfect,  whether  we  have  it  all,  or  a  part; 
whatever  we  have  is  perfect,  if  not  changed 
by  designing  men  after  having  been 
revealed.  That  law  is  given  to  man  as 
Isaiah  says,  28  : 10,  "  Precept  upon  precept, 
line  upon  line,  here  a  little  and  there  a  lit- 
tle." And  this  is  the  view  taken  in  the 
writings  of  Paul.  "  For  I  am  not  ashamed 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  for  it  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  to  the  Greek,  for  therein  is  the  righte- 
ousness of  God  revealed."  Does  he  mean 
all  revealed,  so  that  Jesus  could  no  more 
communicate  anything  that  was  good 
or  beneficial  to  the  world?  No,  sir.  For, 
nearly  the  whole  of  our  New  Testament 
was  written  after  this  language  of  the  apos- 
tle was  sent  to  the  saints  at  Corinth. 

The  apostle  in  the  next  part  of  the  sen- 
tance  is  the  interpreter:  "  From  faith  to 
faith."  It  "is  revealed  from  faith  to  faith." 
As  men  have  faith  to  advance  in  the  divine 
life;  and  this  is  in  harmony  with  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament  teach- 
ings. Now  turn  back  to  your  argument 
upon  this  subject  where  you  held  that  the 
Apostles  were  the  constitution  makers,  the 
framers,  and  look  down  the  line  again.  My 
position  was  that  they  were  simply  the 
publishers, — the  preachers  of  God's  law  as 


he  delivered  it  to  them.  This  harmonizes 
with  the  entire  text,  "  revealed  from  faith 
to  faith;"  "hath  committed  the  word  of 
reconciliation  to  us  ;"  "  Whereunto  I  am 
ordained  a  preacher,  and  an  apostle,  a 
teacher  of  the  Gentiles  in  faith  and  verity." 

•'  A  minister,"  etc.  "  Go  teach  all  nations." 
"Teaching  them  toobserveall  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you."  That  I 
have  commanded  you  ;  and,  notwithstand- 
ing this  former  commanding  it  was  neces- 
sary that  they  be  further  commanded  as 
they  proceeded  in  the  divine  work,  and  in- 
struction was  given  "  from  faith  to  faith.,' 

Now  I  call  you  back  to  the  reference 
of  the  translation  of  the  Bible  by  Mr. 
Smith,  as  he  read  some  verses  from 
it  to  show  how  bad  Smith  was ;  but 
was  there  any  bad  things  in  the  verses 
which  he  read?  Oh,  no,  simply  because 
it's  Smith's  translation,  and  Mr.  Smith  was 
not  college-bred  ;  he  gave  God  the  credit  for 
the  work  of  translation  ;  that  is  the  trouble. 
I  have  shown  you  that  the  originals  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  were  to  some 
extent  changed,  and  thereby  much  light 
taken  from  the  word  of  God.  If  you  will 
compare  the  Doway  version  with  the  King 
James'  version,  you  can  easily  determine 
that,  without  going  back  to  the  Greek  or 
Hebrew ;  and  if  this  is  a  truth,  and  Mr. 
Smith's  translation  throws  light  by  re- 
storing this,  is  it  a  bad  thing,  and  should 
we  say  he  was  sacrilegious  ? 

I  told  you  from  the  outset  that  I  was  not 
particular  what  translation  we  were  to  use 
in  tliis  discussion,  for  I  could  prove  my 
faith  by  either  well-attested  one.  All  of 
these  translations  harmonize  in  their  prom- 
inent and  essential  features  when  taken  as 
a  whole.  But  at  the  same  time  this  is  true, 
it  is  also  true  that  on  account  of  the  inac- 
curacies in  the  word,  many  things  are  ren- 
dered dark  until  the  entire  line  of  inspired 
writings  upon  them  are  examined,  and  few 
men  can  so  read  and  examine  the  Bible. 
Hence,  it  is  in  God's  wisdom  to  give  us  a 
translation  and  correction.  Remember, 
correction  also,  so  that  it  shall  enlighten 
the  feet  of  those  who  would  have  otherwise 
walked  in  the  dark.  My  opponent  claims 
that  Paul's  words  as  to  "  baptism  for  the- 
dead"  "has  always  been  considered  by 
scholars  as  a  dark  passage."  And  in  his 
affirmative  question  he  admitted  his  church 
would  not  even  presume  to  take  a  position 
on  the  God-head,  because  they  were  so 
much  in  the  dark,  but  not  more  so,  lie 
thought,  than  others  ;  yet  Jesus  says,  "This 
is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee 
the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent."  According  to  this,  he  has 
truly  admitted  salvation  out  of  his  Church. 
It  is  necessary  to  know  the  Father  and  Son 
to  have  life.  And  says  the  apostle  '  If  our 
Gospel  be  hid  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are 
lost."  Ignorance  does  not  do  here,  they 
must  "  walk  in  the  light,"  as  John 
declares,  and  to  do  this  one  must  have  th» 
Comforter  from  on  high. 

My  opponent  should  have  told  this 
audience  frankly  that  many  ol  tue  correo- 


852 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ttons  made  by  Mr.  Smith's  translation  havo 
since  been  endorsed  by  the  first  scholars  of 
the  world.  They  did  not  know  they  were 
confirrnimg  him,  however.  Such  a  thought 
would  have  amazed  those  high-toned 
churchmen.  Open  to  First  Cor.,  10:  24, 
"  Let  no  man  seek  his  own,  but  every  man 
another's  wealth."  Here  according  to  the 
King  James'  translation  we  have  to  seek 
other  men's  wealth.  But  it  is  corrected  by 
Mr.  Smith  forty  years  ago,  to  read  "Seek 
another's  good  ;"  and  although  Mr.  Smith 
has  been  accused  of  trying  to  find  law  to 
permit  him  to  prey  upon  the  property  of 
others,  and  persons  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
pervert  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Book  of 
Covenants  in  order  to  try  to  prove  the  false 
claim.  But  in  1881,  the  scholars  of  the 
world,  in  their  Revised  Version  of  the  New 
Testament,  correct  the  sentiment  here  to 
read  as  Mr.  Smith  had  corrected  it  forty 
years  before.  The  next  point  I  will  notice 
is  the  idea  which  is  carried  in  these  hooks 
which  have  perverted  our  teachings  so 
much,  that  we  were  "to  suck  the  milk  of 
the  Gentiles  and  take  the  whole  country." 
[Nothing  is  farther  from  the  truth  than  this. 
We  are  more  clearly  upon  the  record  on  this 
point  than  any  other  church  in  America. 
Our  faith  is  as  set  forth  in  the  Book  of 
Covenants,  page  177:  "Let  no  man  break 
the  laws  of  the  land  ;  be  subject  to  the 
powers  that  be  ;  (the  government  in  which 
•we  live);  until  He  reigns,  whose  right  it  is 
to  reign,  and  subdues  all  enemies  under 
His  feet."  Who  is  this?  Answer:  Jesus 
Christ.  How  long  are  we  to  conform  to  law 
and  be  subjects  ?  Answer :  till  Jesus  Christ 
ehall  come.  We  are  not  to  take  possession 
of  the  kingdom  then  as  some  have  foolishly 
supposed  ;  but  if  we  are  Christ's  children, 
his  saints,  we  will  be  given  the  kingdom 
when  becomes.  Theprophet  Daniel  speak 7 
ing  of  this  says:  "For  the  kingdom  was 
given  to  the  saints  of  the  most  high."  Is 
this  the  hope  which  our  enemies  have  so 
shamefully  misrepresented?  Do  not  all  the 
followers  of  Jesus  expect  to  share  in  this 
final  hope? 

Now  all  of  this  talk  about  all  religious 
parties  being  destroyed  except  the  Latter 
Day  Saints,  and  that  they  are  to  take  the 
earth,  is  had  to  stir  up  prejudice  against  us  ; 
there  is  no  true  foundation  for  it,  nor  never 
was. 

There  has  doubtless  been  found  persons 
among  the  Latter  Day  Saints  who  have  at 
times  said  foolish  things  and  been,  perhaps, 
fanatical ;  but  is  that  any  ground  for  these 
grave  charges  against  the  body  ?  Is  that 
the  way  to  decide  upon  the  views,  faith  or 
character  of  any  other  people,  simply  from 
what  some  excited  or  evilly  disposed  mem- 
ber may  have  said?  This  is  the  way  in 
which  my  opponent  has  sought  to  carry 
on  his  side  of  the  discussion  from  the  first ; 
to  pick  up  all  that  he  could  find  that  has 
ever  been  said  by  this  one  or  that  one, 
either  of  those  who  had  been  cut  off  from 
our  society,  or  those  who  have  ever  been 
bitter  and  unrelenting  enemies,  from  pre- 
judice, ignorance  and  superstition  or  other- 


wise, and  (ell  to  this  audience.  To  gather 
up  all  the  foul  newspaper  stories  that  have 
beeu  published  and  insiduously  circulated 
against  the  Saints,  and  read  them  here  for 
evidence. 

I  showed  fully  from  the  beginning  of  this 
discussion  that  such  a  course  was  not  in  any 
sense  justifiable;  that  no  body  of  people 
and  no  religion  could  be  fairly  or  in  any 
sense  correctly  attested  by  any  such  course  ; 
that  that  was  the  way,  to  abuse,  falsify, 
wrong  and  slander  people,  but  never  to 
ascertain  what  they  really  are,  or  what  their 
religion  is. 

I  showed  fully  and  effectually  too,  that  if 
Jesus  and  the  apostles  were  tried  in  such  a 
way  we  would  have  to  confess  that  they 
in  no  sense  would  bear  such  iesp  •  for  tney 
were  berated,  abused,  slandered,  while 
living  and  since  their  deaths,  althougn  uvo, 
eighteen  hundred  years  have  passed  away 
since  the  false  statements  were  first  circu- 
lated. Jesus  was  no  exception  to  the  rule. 
No  upright  man  of  prominence  in  God's 
work  has  escaped,  and  from  the  very  nature 
of  things.  He  who  originates  these  lies  is 
the  Devil,  the  evil  one,  who  has  ever  gotten 
up  such  stories  and  influenced  men  and 
women  to  tell  and  circulate  them,  and  could 
it  be  supposed  that  he  would  not  act  like 
himself  in  this  age  and  dispensation  of  the 
world?  He  is,  as  stated  by  Jesus,  the 
"  father  of  lies,"  and  of  course  will  be  car- 
rying on  his  own  work.  But,  says  one, 
these  are  not  lies  he  has  told  about  the 
Latter  Day  Saints.  That  is  just  what  the 

Seople  thought  about  the  tales  told  against 
esus  and  Paul.  They  thought  they  were 
true  stories.  Where  does  the  fault  lie  in 
regard  to  this  ?  It  is  in  pursuing  a  course 
presumably  for  evidence,  which  will  not 
bring  true  evidence. 

It  is  impossible  to  attain  truth  by  seeking 
to  these  tales  and  second  and  third  handed 
statements  made  in  the  absence  of  the 
parties  against  whom  they  mitigate,  and 
for  this  reason  Courts  of  Justice  as  I  have 
shown  exclude  them  as  vile  and  utterly  un- 
reliable. Truth  cannot  be  gained  in  any 
case  in  this  way. 

My  opponent  has  taken  a  course  in  this 
controversy  by  which  he  has  disregarded 
all  rules  of  evidence.  Broken  every  estab- 
lished principle  for  eliciting  truth.  Has 
violated  with  impunity  the  rules  of  law  and 
order  established  by  our  legislatures  and 
Judicial  tribunals  ;  upheld  and  followed  a 
rule  which  in  the  past  brought  opprobrium 
and  disrepute  against  Jesus  and  the  apos- 
tles and  their  religion ;  that  caused  the 
martyrdom  of  the  faithful  in  the  first  and 
second  centuries  ;  that  put  to  the  rack,  starv- 
ation and  death,  the  good  under  the  Refor- 
mation, and  caused  the  people  to  clamor  for 
the  life  of  Joseph  Smith,  because  he  differed 
with  them  in  the  matter  of  religion.  It  is 
the  matter  of  his  work  that  I  deprecate ; 
it  is  the  system  of  slander  that  I  consider 
most  revolting  and  disgraceful.  Accept 
such  a  system  of  investigation  and  no  man's 
reputation  and  character  is  safe.  I  could 
by  following  such  a  course  sink  into  lasting 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


353 


disgrace  the  Disciple,  or  any  other  church 
with  which  I  am  acquainted.  Not  only 
that,  but  most  any  public  man,  whether  re- 
ligious or  otherwise ;  and  especially  if  he 
has  been  unfortunate  enough  to  have  been 
called  to  the  work  of  leading-  a  reformation. 
My  opponent  would  be  down  at  a  single 
stroke.  Only  a  week  ago  there  came  into 
my  hands  a  newspaper  circulating  state- 
ments about  him  that  are  as  grave  as  these 
he  has  charged  against  Joseph  Smith.  But 
he  will  say  they  are  false.  Grant  that  they 
are;  how  does  that  help  the  case?  The 
more  false  they  are  the  more  they  are  evi- 
dence in  my  favor  that  I  am  right  in  my 
positions  of  investigation  in  this  contro- 
versy. I  wish  to  prove  to  him  effectually  that 
his  course  in  this  discussion,  in  rehearsing 
the  statements  of  others  for  facts,  is  unjust- 
ifiable and  against  all  proper  rules  of  de- 
cency and  propriety.  Why  should  I  en- 
gage to  meet  a  professed  minister  of  the 
gospel  in  discussion  on  agreed  and  written 
rules  providing  for  proper  and  respectful 
controversy,  and  then  be  compelled  to  sit 
and  listen  to  the  outrageous  tales  and  sto- 
ries, and  the  most  harsh  and  unjust  epi- 
thets against  my  brethren,  when  I  know 
them  to  be  nothing  more  than  vile  and  re- 
vengeful tales  of  slander?  I  will  not  just 
make  assertions  about  these  published 
statements,  but  prove  that  I  am  not  trying 
to  deceive  you  as  I  pass  along.  The  follow- 
ing upon  this  point  of  my  argument  is  from 
the  Table  Rock  Argus,  a  paper  published  at 
Table  Rock,  Pawnee  county,  Nebraska. 

"FALLS  CITY  JOURNAL: — "This  office  has  received  a 
pamphlet  entitled,  'Ingersoll  Unmasked,'  by  Clark 
Braden.  Braden  requests  us  to  advertise  himself  and 
his  pamphlet  free,  which  is  characteristic  of  the  dead 
beat.  The  Kearney  Journal,  Oakland  Independent, 
Omaha  Watchman  aiid  a  ft-w  other  exchanges,  have 
puffed  this  fraud,  and  we  hope  they  will  publish  our 
version  of  Braden  Unmasked.  We  personally  know 
Clark  Braden  to  be  an  unscrupulous  liar.  A  number 
of  years  ago,  in  Pawnee  City,  he  villainously  slandered 
the  character  of  Joshua  K.  Giddings,  the  old  anti- 
slavery  hero,  for  which  he  was  taken  to  account  then 
and  there.  Braden  is  a  liar  by  nature,  and  a  charlatan 
by  profession.  He  exhausted  his  resources  for  knavery 
In  this  State,  and  is  no  longer  recognized  by  his  own 
church,  in  the  East.  No  respectable  publishing  house 
would  take  Braden's  pamphlet,  and  he  was  obliged  to 
piint  it  at  his  own  expense  and  in  his  own  name." 

Upon  this  statement  made  in  the  Fallt 
City  Journal,  the  editor  of  the  Argus  said  : 

"The  editor  of  the  Argus  received  a  similar  pamphlet, 
•with  the  same  request.  From  w'>at  we  can  learn  of  Mr. 
Braden  he  i*  a  scoundrel  and  vill.-un  of  the  blackest 
dye  and  is  worthy  of  no  endorsement  nt  the  hands  of 
respectable  publishers.  Christianity  evidently  needs 
no  such  defenders  as  Clark  Braden,  formerly  of  Pawnee 
county,  Nebra  ka." 

These  are  the  published  statements  of  men 
now  living,  and  doubtless  my  opponent  will 
say  they  are  false  and  slanderous.  But 
that  is  not  the  point.  I  have  read  these  to 
show  you  that  we  cannot  accept  the  man- 
ner and  woik  of  Mr.  Braden,  during  this 
discussion  for  argument.  If  these  are 
false,  it  proves  my  position  true,  without 
a  doubt;  if  true,  all  the  assertions  he  has 
made  during  this  discussion  and  the  pur- 
ported evidence  falls  flatter  still,  and  my 
opponent  is  still  discomfited. 

I  must  say  for  myself,  thst  his  style  of 
debate  has  been  the  most  conspicuous 


failure,  that  T  have  ever  witnessed,  so  far 
as  overturning  a  peoples'  faith  is  concerned. 
Bo  much,  upon  the  kind  of  weapons  used. 
My  opponent  seems  to  have  been  consider- 
ably chagrined  over  his  effort  last  evening1, 
about  the  punctuation  and  capitals  used  in 
the  original  manuscript  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  and  he  endeavors  to  try  to  make 
you  believe  I  have  changed  my  positions 
upon  this  since  I  was  at  Wither.  There  is 
not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  I  hold  the  same 
views  now,  as  then,  and  have  properly 
stated  them  in  both  placs.  Mr.  J.  H.  (Gil- 
bert has  been  fairly,  fully  and  absolutely 
caught  in  his  attempts  to  break  down  the 
religion  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints.  He 
stated  in  my  presence,  and  to  other  parties, 
what  I  read  to  you.  He  in  fact,  knew  noth- 
ing when  examined,  against  our  people,  or 
against  the  truth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
His  statement  was  published,  as  I  stated 
last  evening  ;  when  it  was  learned  that  he 
said  he  bad  been  misrepresented,  W.  H. 
Kell-ey  wrote  to  him  asking  him  to  point  out 
wherein;  that  he  had  published  his 
language  as  taken  at  the  time,  and  if  there 
was  a  misunderstanding,  he  wished  to 
know  wherein,  and  that  if  he  had  heen 
mis-reported,  it  was  unintentional.  This 
letter,  Mr.  Gilbert  has  never  answered.  He 
cannot  do  it.  And  the  examination  of  the 
manuscript  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
answer  of  Mr.  David  Whitmer,  effectually 
squelches  all  affidavits,  Gilbert  is  able  to 
make.  The  trouble  with  Gilbert  is,  he  ran 
with  Tucker  too  long,  and  has  things  mixed. 
It  is  enough  comment  on  Mr.  Gilberts' 
statement,  to  say,  that  he  is  willing  to  com- 
municate to  Braden's  side,  and  answer 
questions,  but  not  to  mine. 

Next,  I  was  somewhat  amused  at  the 
manner  of  my  opponent  in  dealing  with 
what  he  calls  Mormon  Miracles.  He  first 
challenged  me  to  produce  a  well  attested, 
miracle  that  ever  took  place  in  our  church. 
I  soon  furnished  the  cases  out  of  his  own 
church's  history.  He  cannot  deny  the 
cases  of  healing  and  prophecy,  so  what 
does  he  do?  He  turns  skeptical  all  at  once, 
and  works  himself  up  to  believe  it  was 
done  through  exciting  and  natural  causes. 
Well,  it  was  done.  He  cannot  gainsay  that, 
and  if  he  wants  to  believe  it  was  by  the  same 
power  by  which  the  old  sow  of  which  he 
related  the  story,  wrought,  that  is  his  own 
business.  But  it  seemed  to  me,  it  must 
appear  to  himself,  that  he  over  reached  the 
mark  a  little.  In  order  to  tell  a  story  to 
ridicule  and  beat  what  actually  took  place 
at  the  appeal  of  Joseph  Smith  for  the 
afflicted,  through  the  name  and  grace  of 
Jesus  Christ,  he  related  a  tale,  which  he 
thinks  beats  Mr.  Smith's  miracles  all  to 
pieces.  It  so  happens  that  his  tale  of  the 
old  sow,  beats  the  reported  miracles  of 
Peter,  Paul,  John  and  Jesus,  just  as  effect- 
ually as  it  does  those  of  Joseph  Smith. 
Shall  we  conclude  then,  magnetism  and 
excitement  did  them  all?  Nonsense.  But  the 
worst  of  all  this  is,  that  he  should  stand 
before  the  audience  and  claim  that  the  girl 
had  some  way  of  knowing  of  the  great  fire 


854 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


At  Pekin,  of  which  the  Spirit  spoke,  when 
he  has  not  one  iota  of  evidence  from  his 
own,  or  any  side  to  base  it  upon.  No  such 
ciaim  could  possibly  be  justly  made,  at 
this  time,  when  Ryder,  their  preacher,  who 
related  it  and  all  connected  with  it,  who 
saw,  hearil  and  were  acquainted  with  the 
circumstances,  are  beyond  the  reach  of  an 
interview.  No,  the  ship  had  corne,  but 
Byder  had  not  heard  of  it.  That  is  Braden's 
solution.  In  order  to  carry  out  his  views 
he  deliberately  makes  out  his  own  brother 
ministers  to  be  perfect  ninnies,  without  the 
faculty  of  criticising  a  simple  thing,  like 
the  time  of  the  arrival  of  a  vessel,  when 
they  are  depending  upon  a  statement  relat- 
ing to  the  same  on  a  matter  of  the  highest 
importance.  Let  nay  opponent  drop  these 
silly  objections,  and  argue  the  question 
under  discussion. 

Is  the  church  lam  representing  here,  in 
name,  principles,  faith,  doctrine,  practices, 
ordinances,  organization  and  worship,  a 
complete  shadow  of  the  type  that  is  reflected 
in  the  New  Testament?  If  it  is,  it  is  God's 
church  and  accepted  with  him.  Let  the 
word  of  God  settle  it;  by  this  word  are  we 
to  be  finally  judged;  not  the  stories  told, 
and  let  us  be  honest,  whatever  the  result. 
41  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son." 

But  I  will  not  allow  my  opponent's  at- 
tempt-to limit  the  spiritual  gifts  and  the 
spirit  of  revelation  to  the  Apostolic  age  of 
Christianity  pass  without  noticing  it  again. 
Jesus,  instead  of  thus  limiting  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  first  century 
of  the  Christian  era,  teaches  on  the  con- 
trary, that  the  comforter  is  to  be  given  to 
all  who  keep  his  commandments:  "If  ye 
love  me,  keep  my  commandments.  And  I 
will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you 
another  comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with 
you  forever."  John,  14:15,  16.  '-Even  the 
spirit  of  truth  which  proceedath  from  the 
Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me."  John  15:26. 

"  For  he  (the  comforter)  shall  not-speak  of 
himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  that 
shall  he  speak  ;  and  he  will  show  you  things 
to  come."  John  16:16.  Please  observe:  this 
comforter  that  "speaks"  and  shows  "things 
to  come,"  is  not  limited  to  the  Apostles, 
but  promised  to  all  who  love  the  Lord  and 
who  keep  his  commandments.  So  likewise 
Jesus,  after  his  resurrection,  makes  the 
promise  that  "these  signs  shall  follow  them 
that  believe"  the  gospel,  not  only  in  the 
first  age  of  Christianity,  but  co-extensive 
with  the  preaching  of,  belief  in  and  obedi- 
ence to  the  gospel,  in  "all  the  world." 
Notice  the  salvation  here  promised  on  con- 
dition of  obedience  to  the  gospel ;  the  con- 
demnation pronounced  on  condition  of  not 
obeying  the  gospel,  and  the  signs  promised 
to  follow  the  believer,  areall  equally  unlim- 
ited, so  far  as  time  is  concerned.  "He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved," 
whether  in  the  first  or  the  nineteeneh  cen- 
tury, "and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
condemned,"  whether  in  the  first  or  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  "and  these  signs  shall 
follow  them  that  believe,"  whether  in  the 


first  or  the  nineteenth  century,  so  far  as  the 
promise  of  Christ  is  concerned,  in  Mark 
the  16th  chapter. 

So  Peter,  on  Pentecost  day,  realizing  the 
fulfillment  of  the  statement  of  Christ -in 
his  own  experience  and  that  of  his  breth- 
ren, as  found  in  Luke  24:49,  "Behold  I  send 
thepromise  of  my  Father  upon  you"  under 
the  inspirational  influence  of  that  Holy 
Spirit  received  as  promised,  gives  the  ex- 
tent and  limit  of  that  same  promised  Holy 
Spirit  to  the  beliaver  in  Christ. 

Hence,  to  the    3,000    who    on    that    day 
enquired  the  conditions  of  salvation,  Peter 
said,  "  Llepentand  be  baptized,  every  one 
of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
for  the  promise  is  to  you."     Not  to  us  the 
Apostles  onfy, — and  to  the  next  generation 
after  you, — "and   to  your  children."     But 
Peter,  as  if  foreseeing  the  objections  to  the 
receiving    of   the   Holy    Ghost,  would    be 
urged   in   later  ages,   does    not  limit  the 
"promise"    to    that   generation,    and   the 
next    one,   their    children  ;    but    proceeds 
to  extend  it  to  "all,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call."    All  then  that 
vrill  believe  and  obey 'the  Gospel,  even  all 
that  are  afar  off,  are  called  to  the  enjoyment 
of  the    "gift  of    the    Holy   Ghost"    here 
promised.     See  Acts  2:  38,  39.    So  far  as 
the  terms  "Holy  Ghost"  and  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is   concerned,  Luke,  another 
of   the   inspired   writers    uses    these    two 
phrases  interchangably  in  Acts.  10:  44,  45. 
The  Spirit  given  to  the  disciples  of  Christ 
on  Pentecost,  Peter  urges,  is  the  Spirit  re- 
ferred to  by  Joel,  a  Jewish  prophet,  quoting 
him    as  authority,  when   reasoning    with 
those  accepting  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures as  valid  authority.    And  he  shows  to 
them  that  the  Spirit  there  manifested,  is 
the  same  Spirit  Joel  referred  to,  but  does  not 
say  it  was  a  full  and  complete  fulfillment  of 
Joel's  prophecy.    The  "gift"  manifested 
there,  was  "  the  gift  of  tongues,  "  a  gift  not 
mentioned  in  Joel's  prophecy.  Joel  says,  the 
old  men  are  to  dream  dreams.  How  many  of 
the  old  men  fell  asleep  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
costand  dreamed  dreams?   Joel  says,  "  the 
young  men  shall  see  visions."    How  many 
of  the  young  men  had  visions  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost?    Joel  says,  "the  servants  and 
the  handmaidens  shall  prophesy  when  the 
Spirit  is  poured  out."    How  many  servants 
and  handmaidens  prophesied  at  Pentecost? 
Joel  says  that  after  the  children  of  Israel  are 
gathered  back  to  the  land  of  their  Fathers, 
"afterward  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon 
all  flesh."    But  the  ultimate  and  complete 
fulfillment  of  Joel's  prediction  will  be  real- 
ized after  Israel  is  gathered  preparatory  to 
the  coming  of  the  Lord  in  glory,  connected 
with  which  will  be  the  great  and  dreadful 
day  of  the  Lord,  the  turning  of  the  sun  into 
darkness,  and  the  moon  into  blood,  evea 
the  day  of  the  deliverance  of  the  righteous 
by  the  advent  of  Christ  in  glory.    Joel  2: 
28,32.     Matthew  24th  chapter:    "  Of  this 
Spirit  then  the  believers  in  the  Gospel  are 
entitled  to  in  every  age  when  the  Gospel  is 
preached,  believed  and  obeyed,  to  the  end 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


355 


of  the  world,  according  to  these  teachings 
of  Jesus  and  Peter." 

Then  shall  we  so  interpret  the  language 
of  the  apostle  Paul  in  the  13th  chapter  of 
First  Corinthians  as  to  contradict  Jesus,  the 
Master,  and  the  apostle  Peter  in  relation  to 
the  perpetuity  of  the  spiritual  gifts  and 
have  him  teach  their  limitation  to  the  first 
age  of  Christianity?  No,  Paul  teaches  that 
they  are  essental  to  the  edifying  of  the 
church  and  the  perfecting  of ^the  saints— not 
the  perfecting  of  the  law — till  "that  which 
is  perfect  is  come."  Paul  is  not  contrasting 
an  imperfect  LAW  with  a  perfect  one.  The 
contrast  here  is  between  the  saints  with  the 
gifts  having  an  imperfect  knowledge  and 
understanding  of  the  things  of  the  gr«at 
hereafter — this  mortal  state— as  compared 
to  the  perfect  condition  and  understanding 
of  things  divine,  when  we  reach  the  immor- 
tal and  perfect  state.  An  imperfect  con- 
gregation— church  militant — is  contrasted 
with  the  church  triumphant  and  immortal. 
Hence  the  language,  "For  we  know  in  part, 
and  we  prophesy  in  part.  But  when  that 
which  is  perfect,  [perfect  at  the  time  when 
Paul  wrote  the  Corinthian  letter — not  that 
which  will  be  perfect]  is  come,  then  that 
which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away." 

Therefore  Paul  does  consistently  with 
these  great  facts,  teach  the  Ephesians 
that  not  only  the  nine  gifts  mentioned  in 
the  letter  to  the  Corinthians  were  given  to 
build  up  the  church'  till  the  day  of  perfec- 
tion arrives, but  that  five  other  gifts, namely, 
apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors  and 
teachers,  thus  aggregating  fourteen  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  in  all,  were  given  "for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  saints  [not  the  law,  that  was 
already  perfect,  see  Ps.  19  ;  James  1 : 25]  for 
the  works  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  till  we  all  come  to  a 
perfect  man — [not  perfect  law] — to  the 
measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of 
Christ."  (Not  till  we  get  a  book  made). 

Christ,  when  Paul  wrote  this  language, 
was  an  immortal,  resurrected  being,  and 
these  gifts  being  given  "till"  we  all  come 
to  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness 
of  Christ,  who  was  then  full  in  the  wisdom 
of  God,  these  spiritual  endowments  are 
essential  to  well  being  and  edifying  of  his 
church,  till  we  reach  the  immortal  state, 
even  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

If  the  Ancient  Church,  with  more  scrip- 
ture than  we  possess  to-day,  with  all  its 
inspired  apostles,  prophets  and  other 
officers,  together  with  all  the  spiritual  gifts, 
only  "saw  through  a  glass  darkly,"  when 


trying  to  view  the  great  future  with  its 
rewards  and  hopes,  what  degree  of  perfec- 
tion are  we  attaining  to-day,  with  less 
scripture,  a  less  perfect  law  than  they  had, 
and  devoid  of  all  Spiritual  light  by  the 
gifts? 

Then,  how  consistently  can  the  great 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  after  showing  to 
the  Corinthians  "a  more  excellent  way" 
than  to  think  all  could  be  apostles,  or  all 
could  be  prophets,  or  all  were  teachers,  or 
all  be  endowed  with  any  one  office  or  gift, 
by  showing  them  how  God  had  distributed 
the  gifts  among  the  different  members  of 
the  one  body,  as  in  the  language:  "God 
hath  set  the  members  every  one  of  them  in. 
the  body  as  it  pleased  Him, "'(God):  Change 
and  teach  another  thing?  He  could  not 
do  so.  He  then  proceeds  to  instruct  the 
saints  that  the  gifts  without  charity  would 
avail  nothing,  but  that  charity  and  gifts 
together  would  insure  their  reward,  if  faith- 
ful to  all  the  commands. 

He  then  informs  us  that  we  are  under 
obligation  to  God,  to  seek  to  attain  these 
gifts,  a  Divine  command  twice  repeated. 
Thus — "  Covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts."— 
"Follow  after  charity, "and  "desire  spirit- 
ual gifts."  Yee, desirespiritual gifts, justas 
long  as  we  follow  after  charity. 

"  Even  so  ye,  forasmuch  as  ye  are  zealous 
of  Spiritual  gifts,  seek  thai  ye  may  excel  to 
the  edifying  of  the  Church." 

"  If  a  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet 
or  Spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the 
things  which  /  write  unto  you,  are  the 
commandments  of  God.  1  Cor.  12:  31,  14:  1: 
12  and  37. 

So  writes  this  divinely  inspired  teacher, 
Paul,  in  concluding  this  subjectof  Spiritual 
gifts,  in  this  letter,  addressed  to  "All,  that 
in  everyplace  call  on  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  both  their  Lord  and  ours."  Chapter 
1 :  verse  2. 

Since  we  are  thus  commanded  to  seek  the 
Spiritual-  gifts  in  righteousner  a,  to  the 
edifying  of  the  church,  let  us  remember 
that  the  Savior  says:  "He  that  hath  my 
commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is 
that  loveth  me,  and  he  that  loveth  me 
shall  beloved  of  my  Father;  and  I  will 
love  him,  and  ivill  manifest  my  self  to  him." 
John  14:  21.  Let  us  then  secure  the  love 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  by  observing  the 
command  to  seek  the  gifts,  along  with  all 
the  other  commands,  and  also  secure  the 
"manifestation  "  of  Christ  to  us,  as  prom- 
ised. 

(Time  expired). 


866 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


MR.    BRADEN'S   SIXTH   SPEECH. 


MODKTlATOFS,    TOADIES  AND 

C  i.^  i  LEMEN  :  —  Mormons  liy  to  deny  that 
Smith  began  his  course  as  seer  by  witching 
for  water  with  a  witch  hazel  rod,  and  peep- 
ing for  stolen  and  lost  articles  and  buried 
treasures.  Mrs.  Smith  in  her  life  of  Joe, 
Biimiis  that  he  did  such  work.  The  editor, 
apostle  Blair,  admits  that  he  did.  Scores 
of  associates  testify  to  the  fact.  They  try 
to  deny  that  he  dug  for  money,  and  superin- 
tended a  gang  of  knaves  and  dupes  in  such 
•work.  His  mother  admits  that  he  did.  So 
does  apostle  Blair,  the  editor.  Scores  tes- 
tify to  his  spending  years  in  such  work. 
That  great  excavations  were  made  all  over 
the  neighborhood  and  for  miles  around,  ex- 
tending from  Palmyra,  N.  Y.,  to  Har- 
mony, Pa.,  and  Hartwicke,  N.  Y.  Many  of 
tliese  excavations  can  be  seen  to-day. 
"When  the  gang  came  to  Kirtland  they  re- 
newed the  work  of  digging  for  treasure  ancl 
living  witnesses  can  be  cited  who  can  point 
out  where  they  dug  in  Kirtland.  Mormon- 
ism  began  in  .peeping  with  a  stolen  peep- 
stone,  and  witching  for  water  with  a  witch 
hazel  rod,  and  digging  for  years  for  buried 
money.  It  began  in  superstition,  lying  and 
fraud  attended  with  thieving,  drunkenness 
and  lewdness.  The  witching  for  water  was  a 
lying  fraud  ;  so  was  finding  the  plates  and 
translating.  Peeping  for  lost  property  and 
buried  treasure  with|  the  stolen  ]peep-stone 
was  a  fraud.  So  was  the  pretense  of  find- 
ing plates  and  translating  them.  Digging 
for  buried  treasures,  seen  with  the  stolen 
peep-stone,  was  a  lying  fraud.  So  was  the 
tale  of  digging  up  plates  and  translating 
them  with  a  stolen  peep-stone.  We,  on  a 
former  occasion,  exposed  Joe's  lies  and  con- 
tradictory stories  about  his  plates,  and  the 
lies  and  contradictory  stories  of  all  connected 
\yith  the  fraud.  We  could  read  Joe's  own 
statement  of  his  casting  the  devil  out  of 
Newell  Knight  in  New  York.  Mrs.  Smith 's 
yarns  of  visions,  miracles,  etc.,  that  attend- 
ed their  first  meetings  and  their  removal  to 
Ohio.  One  of  Joe's  unmarried  sisters  prov- 
ing to  beencienteitwas  declared  to  be  an  im- 
maculate conception,  and  a  new  Messiah 
•would  be  given  to  the  world.  Old  citizens 
of  Palmyra  and  Manchester  testify  to  hear- 
ing such  stuff'  from  Martin  Harris,  David 
Whitmer  and  ^ther  Mormons.  The  whole 
affair  was  a  strange  compound  of  ignorance, 
superstition^  lying,  fraud,  trickery,  and 
low  cunning,  managed  by  Joe,  who  was  an 
infidel,  and  was  imitating  his  favorite  char- 
acters, the  clerical  impostor  Stephen  Bur- 
roughs, and  Mahammed.  It  would  require 
volumes  to  record  the  absurdities,  the  tricks 
and  lies  of  all  connected  with  the  fraud. 
The  low  absurd  character  of  the  pretended 
supernatural  events  connected  with  the 
origin  of  Mormonism,  shows  its  low  vile 
origin,  and  the  low,  ignorant  character  of 


its  originators.  The  most  low  and  absurd 
superstitions  of  Southern  negroes  were 
eclipsed. 

The  real  originator  of  Mormonis-m  was 
Sydney  Rigdon,  who  only  intended  to  use 
Smith  as  his  tool,  to  get  the  fraud  before 
the  world,  as  a  miracle  and  revelation, 
through  his  stolen  peep-stone.  But  Smith 

E  roved  to  be  a  deeper  schemer  than  even 
Ligdon.  When  Iligdon  allowed  Joe  to  go 
before  the  world  first,  to  usher  in,  and  con- 
duct the  movements  for  months,  as  its 
prophet,  and  came  in  only  as  a  convert,  he 
gave  away  his  chances  to  be  leader.  He 
often  tried  in  Kirtland,  in  Missouri,  inNau- 
voo,  to  get  the  coveted  place  of  leader  and 
make  Smith  subordinate;  but  he  had  put 
the  citadel  in  Smith's  hands  and  entered 
only  as  a  recruit,  and  Smith  was  too  cunning 
for  him  to  succeed  in  ousting  him.  Smith 
always  held  Rigdon  in  the  position  he  as- 
sumed when  he  embraced  Mormonism  open- 
ly, that  of  a  mere  convert,  and  never 
allowed  him  to  assume  his  real  position, 
the  author  of  the  whole  fraud  ;  and  the  one 
who  intended  to  be  leader,  and  only  in- 
tended to  allow  Smith  to  act  as  author  and 
leader  for  a  short  time,  in  order  to  start 
the  fraud.  Rigdon  intended  to  use  Smith 
as  a  cat's  paw  to  rake  the  roasted  chestnuts 
off  of  the  stove  of  public  censure  and  criti- 
cism ;  but  the  cat  proved  to  be  a  shrewder 
imp  than  even  the  one  trying  to  use  him. 
He  kept  the  chestnuts  and  threw  to  the 
originator  of  the  scheme,  only  the  shells. 
Rigdon's  whole  career  in  Mormonism  was 
an  apish  chattering  and  qnarrelling  to 
regain  what  he  had  given  away. 
Since  the  discussion  began  I  have  come  in 

Sossession  of  the  following  facts  :  James 
effery,  of  Churchville,  Harford  Co.  Mary- 
land, in  a  statement  dictated  to  Rev.  Calvin 
D.  Wilson,  in  the  presence  of  his  wife,  de- 
clares :  "Forty  years  ago  I  was  in  business 
in  St.  Louis.  The  Mormons  then  had  their 
temple  in  Nauvoo,  111,  I  had  business 
transactions  with  them.  I  knew  Sydney 
Rigdon.  He  acted  as  general  manager  of 
the  business  of  the  Mormons  (with  me). 
Rigdou  told  me  several  times  in  his  conver- 
sations with  me,  that  there  was  in  the  print- 
ing office  with  which  he  was  connected  in 
Ohio,  a  manuscript  of  the  Rev.  Spaulding's 
tracing  the  origin  of  the  Indian  race  from 
the  lost  tribes  of  Israel.  This  manuscript 
was  in  the  office  several  years.  He  was  fa- 
miliar with  it.  Spaulding  wanted  it  pub- 
lished, but  had  not  the  means  to  pay  for  the 
printing.  He  (Rigdon)  and  Joe  Smith  used 
to  look  over  the  manuscript  and  read  it  on 
Sundays ;  Rigdon  said  Smith  took  the 
manuscript  and  said,  "I'll  print  it,"  *ud 
he  went  off  to  Palmyra,  N.  Y." 

On  the  14th  of  September,  1844,  Sydney 
Iligdon,  who  was  trying  to  us*  urn  «  Joe 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Smith's  place  as  President  and  Prophet, 
was  called  on  by  a  committee  of  the  iwe.ve 
apostles.  In  the  conversation  with  them, 
he  told  them  that  they  dare  nor  reject  him. 
If  they  did,  he  would  reveal  their  secrets. 
On  the  15th  and  16th  Brigham  Young  and 
others  denounced  him  for  such  threats. 
They  rejected  him  and  expelled  him  Sep- 
tember 16th. 

In  an  article  in  the  "Times  and  Seasons," 
•cf  May  1st,  1845,  reprinted  from  the  Kala- 
znazoo  Gazette,  and  signed  E.  M.  Webb, 
Rigdon  is  bitterly  denounced  for  his  expos- 
ures of  Mormonism. 

In  a  conversation  with  Dr.  Silas  Shep- 
pard, some  time  after  his  return  to  Pennsyl- 
vania from  Nauvoo,  in  response  to  Dr. 
Sheppard's  request  that  he  would  now, 
since  he  had,  as  he  declared  to  Dr.  Shep- 
pard,  renounced  all  connection  with  Mor- 
inonism  forever,  tell  him,  Dr.  Sheppard, 
the  truth.  In  regard  to  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
Higdon  replied,  "Dr,  Sheppard,  my  mouth 
is  forever  sealed  on  that  subject." 

Rigdon  lived  for  long  years  after  this,  in 
«ase.  His  family  flourished  in  business. 
He  wrote  much,  would  talK  on  all  subjects 
tmt  Mormonism,  and  died,  and  as  far  as 
the  world  knows  "gave  no  sign."  Observ- 
ing neighbors  think  that  he  was  a  pension- 
er of  Mormonism,  and  that  his  family  have 
profited  largely  by  selling  his  papers  to  the 
Mormons,  or  in  bribes  to  keep  them  a 
secret. 

Now  let  us  collate  the  facts.  I.  Rigdon 
becomes  intimate  with  Mr.  Jeffery,  while 
acting  for  the  Mormons  in  business  trans- 
actions, II.  Rigdon  threatens  the  Mor- 
mons in  the  Fall  of  1844,  that  he  would  di- 
vulge theirsecrets,  if  they  reject  him  in  his 
attempt  to  be  President.  III.  They  reject 
him.  IV.  On  his  way  back  East,  and 
while  in  St.  Louis,  he  fulfills  his  threats, 
and  tells  Mr.  Jeffery  that  Spaulding's  man- 
uscript was  taken  toa  printing  office.  That 
he  got  it  from  the  office.  That  he  and 
Smith  examined  it  together.  That  he  gave 
it  to  Smith  to  publish.  V.  About  the 
same  time  Mormon  papers  are  denouncing 
him  bitterly  for  his  exposures.  VI.  A 
change  comes  over  the  spirit  of  his  dream. 
He  announces  that  he  has  renounced  Mor- 
monism forever,  but  that  his  mouth  is  for- 
ever sealed  in  regard  to  matters  that  he  had 
been  freely  making  public. 

The  key.  to  the  matter  is,  Rigdon  had 
failed  to  get  a  party  to  follow  him.  He 
could  make  nothing  out  of  Mormonism. 
He  began  to  tell  their  secrets  as  he  declared 
they  would.  Mormon  agents  visited  him. 
They  could  not  let  him  talk  any  more. 
They  offered  him  two  alternatives."  Money 
and  silence,  or  Danite  vengeance.  Rigdon 
had  sent  Danites  on  their  murderous  errands 
too  often  not  to  know  what  that  meant. 
He  took  the  bribe,  and  his  mouth  was  for- 
ever sealed.  He  lived  in  ease,  with  no  vis- 
ible means  of  support.  His  family  have 
been  successful,  with  no  tangible  means  of 
success.  Rigdon  iived  on  Mormon  money, 
paid  to  keep  him  silent.  His  family  have 
made  a  good  thing  out  of  it,  in  accepting 


hush  money.  Rigdon  lived  for  years,  an 
oatspokon  atheist  and  infidel,  and  died  one. 
Like  most  Mormons  who  are  not  dupes,  out 
knaves  he  turned  infidel,  when  the  fraud 
was  no  longer  profitable. 

Sidney  Rigdon  was  like  Joe  Smith  a  lazy 
youth  noted  for  his  extravagant,  language, 
stories  and  exaggerations  and  falsehoods. 
He  used  to  talk  scepticism  and  was  noved 
for  his  fondness  for  debate.  After  he  stole 
the  Spaulding  manuscript  he  joined  the 
Baptist  church.  He  told  a  marvellous  ex- 
perience and  afterwards  told  the  Baptist 
Association  when  they  were  trying  him  that 
it  was  all  a  lie.  He  manufactured  it  to  get 
into  the  church.  He  began  preaching  as 
soon  as  he  joined  the  church  and  soon  began 
to  plot  to  oust  the  old  pastor  of  the  church 
and  get  his  place  and  came  very  near 
ruining  the  church.  Failing  in  this  and 
having  lost  the  confidence  of  the  Baptists 
in  Pennsylvania,  be  went  to  Ohio  and 
joined  the  church  in  Warren.  After  preach- 
ing here  for  two  years  he  returned  to 
Piltsburg.  He  remained  here  nearly  two 
years.  He  was  expelled  from  the  Baptist 
chinch  and  preached  a  short  time  to  his 
malcontents  in  the  court  house.  He  resumed 
working  at  his  trade,  a  tanner,  and  began 
to  fix  up  the  manuscript  he  had  stolen  from 
the  printing  office.  During  this  time  he  re- 
sumed his  .infidelity  and  talked  it  openly 
and  freely  as  old  citizens  of  Pittsburgand 
Pennsylvania  testify.  On  a  visit  to  a  rela- 
tive near  where  the  author's  father  had 
charge  of  a  stone  yard,  he  used  to  spend 
hours  in  sitting  near  the  author's  father  and 
talking  his  doubts  and  scepticism. 

In  1826,  while  he  was  living  in  Bainbridge, 
Ohio,  be  was  invited  to  preach  the  funeral 
sermon  of  Warner  Goodall  in  Mentor  by  the 
Baptist  church  who  knew  him  as  brother- 
in-law  of  Adamson  Bentley,  a  well  known 
Baptist  preacher,  and  that  he  had  been  a 
Baptist  preacher.  He  did  so  and  was  in- 
vited to  preach  for  the  church.  He  laid  to 
one  side  his  scepticism  and  preached  for 
them  and  went  with  the  church  into  the 
Disciple  movement.  As  Baptist  and  Disci- 
ple preacher  he  was  noted  for  his  spread- 
eagle  eloquence  and  ability  to  get  up  revi- 
val excitements.  He  had  been  hurt  in 
youth  and  it  left  him  with  a  tendency  to 
epileptic  spells.  He  would  often  while 
preaching,  especially  in  revival  excitements, 
have  such  spells  and  see  visions  and  swoon, 
have  trances,  etc.  This  tendency  caused 
his  preaching  to  be  wild,  visionary  and 
extravagant.  He  was  regarded  as  a  cun- 
ning, ambitious  schemer,  noted  for  his 
extravagant  talk  and  actions,  his  exaggera- 
tions and  untruth,  and  as  destitute  of  truth- 
fulness and  moral  principle.  His  preaching 
attracted  the  visionary  and  fanatical.  H« 
carefully  indoctrinated  them  with  his  ideas 
while  Smith  was  getting  out  his  book.  He 
made  a  confident  of  P.  P.  Pratt  who  let  his 
brother  Orson  into  the  secret,  and  these 
four,  Smith,  Rigdon  and  the  Pratts,  consti- 
tuted the  brains  of  Mormonism  in  the  start. 
Two  were  known  to  be  infidels  before  they 
went  into  Mormonism,  the  two  originator* 


358 


THfi  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


— Rigdon  and  Smith.  The  other  two  were 
probably  no  better. 

It;  will  be  bootless  for  my  opponent  to 
undertake  to  deny  the  statements  of  the 
Palmyra  and  Manchester  people.  Since 
entering  on  this  debate  the  speaker  has 
visited  Palmyra  and  obtained  certificates  of 
Co'.  E".  B  Dewy,  Daniord  Booth,  Ezra 
Pierce,  Samantha  Payne,  M.G.  Smith,  J.  H. 
Gilbert,  that  the  names  attached  to  the 
Palmyra  and  Manchester  statements  were 
the  names  of  real  persons.  That  the  char- 
acter of  ali  for  veracity  was  good.  That 
among  the  names  were  the  best  citizens  of 
Manchester  and  Palmyra.  That  a  list  of 
better  names  could  not  have  been  obtained. 
That  the  statements  were  the  universal 
opinion  of  all  who  knew  Smith,  his  family 
and  associates.  That  such  has  ever  been 
the  opinion  and  such  is  the  opinion  to-day. 
Acquaintances  have  testified  to  the  high 
character  of  VVillard  Chase,  to  the  veracity 
of  Ingersoll  and  all  others  whose  names  are 
attached  to  the  affidavits  published  in 
Howe's  book.  We  have  proved  the  affida- 
vits to  be  genuine. 

We  have  the  statement  of  M.  G.  Smith 
and  survivors  that  they  signed  the  state- 
ments. It  will  do  Mormons  no  good  to 
jabber  "  lies,  frauds,"  etc.  Since  their  sys- 
tem is  all  lies  and  frauds,  they  judge  other 
persons  by  themselves  No  fact  in  history 
can  be  more  fully  sustained  by  human  evi- 
dence than  the  low,  dishonest  trickery, 
lying,  fraudulent  origin  of  Mormonism.  It 
began  in  fraud  for  gain,  and  was  carried  on 
in  fraud  for  gain.  In  Kirtland,  Smith, 
Rigdon  and  the  leaders  borrowed  money, 
bought,  goods  on  credit,  started  a  "  wild  cat 
bank "  without  a  charter,  and  without 
capital,  built  houses,  a  big  temple,  laid  out 
lots,  planned  a  great  city,  built  mills,  fac- 
tories, tanneries,  started  a  big  land  specula- 
tion, paid  more  for  land  in  1834-5-6  than  it 
has  ever  been  worth  since,  dressed  like 
princes,  lived  like  nabobs,  gulled  their 
dupes,  swindled  the  public  with  their 
fraudulent  paper,  and  notes,  until  the 
swindling  bubble  burst  and  left  hundreds 
defrauded  and  ruined.  Rigdon  and  Smith 
were  arrested  for  banking  without  a  charter 
and  were  fined  one  thousand  dollars  each. 
The  printing  office  and  other  property  were 
sold  to  pay  the  execution.  That  night  the 
printing  office,  the  Methodist  church, an  dan- 
other  building  were  set  on  fire.  As  a  blind  a 
pretended  attempt  to  fire  the  temple  was 
shown  to  the  committee  who  investigated 
the  incendiarism.  Rigdon  and  Smith  fled 
from  Kirtland  the  10th  of  January,  1838,  in 
the  night,  to  eseape  arrest  for  swindling, 
and  were  chased  by  the  officer's  posse  over 
one  hundred  miles.  This  is  one  miracle 
that  Mormon  leaders  wrought  in  Kirtland. 
They  got  large  sums  of  money  on  credit, 
and  by  fraudulent  issues  of  w'ild-cat;  and 
succeeded  in  skipping  out  to  Kirtland  be- 
tween two  days,  and  escaped  the  officers  of 
justice  and  the  penitentiary.  That  miracle 
1  will  admit.  There  are  Mormon  admis- 
sions that  corroborate  these  charges.  P. 
P.  Pratt  states  that  when  Smith  moved  from 


New  York  to  Pennsylvania,  his  goods  were 
searched  twice  by  an  officer,  Pratt  pays,  to 
find  the  plates.  As  there  could  not  be  any 
warrant  obtained  to  search  for  the  plates, 
such  an  idea  is  absurd  ;  and  as  a  search 
warrant  to  look  for  stolen  goods  is  the  only 
process  under  which  an  officer  could  search 
his  goods,  they  were  searched  for  stolen 
property.  Mrs.  Smith  admits  that  officers 
searched  his  father's  house  about  the  same 
time.  Smith  says  that  he  and  Rigdon  fled 
for  their  lives  in  the  night  from  Kirtland, 
and  were  chased  by  assassians  over  one 
hundred  miles.  As  the  people  of  Northern 
Ohio  do  not  do  such  deeds,  they  were 
chased  by  officers  to  arrest  them  for  swin- 
dling. The^fraudulent  swindling  transact- 
ions of  Mormon  leaders  in  Kirtland  an*  well 
known.  No  one  dares  deny  them  in  Kirt- 
land. An  eye  witness  told  the  speaker 
this  incident:  Rigdon  was  preaching  in 
the  temple  one  Sunday  urging  the  people  to 
"give  the  devil  his  due — to  pay  him  it.  his 
own  coin."  A  son  of  Belial  arose  aiid 
shouted,  "will  the  devil  take  the  Morrrion 
wild  cat?"  Though  out  of  order  the 
question  was  pertinent.  Mormon  wild  cat 
was  the  currency  of  the  father  of  lies,  and 
no  one  knew  better  than  Rigdon  what  the 
devil  would  accept,  for  no  one  was  bet  ter 
acquaited  with  him. 

In  Missouri.  Mormonism  ran  the  same 
course  as  in  Kirtland.  They  filled  all  th« 
offices  with  Mormons,  trampled  under  foof} 
the  rights  of  others  and  undertook  to  rule. 
by  violence.  A  revelation  of  Joe  Smiih 
taught  them  "Behold,  it  is  written  in  my 
laws  they  are  forbidden  to  get  in  debt  to 
their  enemies.  But  behold,  it  is  not  said  at 
any  time  that  the  Lord  should  not  take  what 
he  pleases  and  pay  as  seemeth  him  good." 
(They  can  steal).'  "Wherefore  as  ye  are 
agents*,  and  as  ye  are  on  the  Lord's  errand, 
and  whatsoever  ye  do  according  to  the  will 
of  the  Lord  is  the  Lord's  business,  and  he 
hath  sent  you  to  provide  for  his  saints." 
Arvard,  Peck  and  Corrill  testified  before 
judge  King  that  they  heard  Smith  justify 
taking  the  property  of  the  Gentiles.  In  the 
same  court  Arvard,  Hinkle  and  Rath  burn. 
testified  to  robbery  by  Mormons,  under 
their  teachers,  and  with  Smith's  knowledge. 
The  Sunday  before  the  disturbances  in 
Davis  County,  Smith  said  that  all  who 
would  not  take  up  arms  should  be  driven 
out  as  enemies.  Rigdon  said  they  ought  to 
be  set  on  horses  and  forced  into  the  fight 
with  bayonets.  Rigdon  said  their  property 
would  he  taken  and  given  to  those  who 
went.  Smith  told  Robinson  to  whip  those 
who  spoke  against  the  presidency.  Smith 
declared  that  those  who  spoke  against  the 
presidency  should  leave  the  country  or  die. 
Slade  testifies  that  Rigdon  pledged  a  com- 
pany to  kill  any  one  who  should  attempt  tr> 
desert  the  Mormons.  Also  that  Rigdou 
declared  that  a  man  had  been  murdered, 
and  that  any  one  who  told  of  it  should  be 
killed. 

Phelps  testifies  that  Rigdon  pledged  a 
company  to  kill  deserters,  and  throw  them 
into  the  brush,  and  give  them  no  burial 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


859 


in  turkey  buzzards'  guts.  The  infi- 
delity and  irreligion  of  these  leaders  can  be 
*een  in  their  talk.  Owen  testifies  that 

Smith  said  that  the  militia  were  a  d d 

eet,  and  fiod  would  damn  them,  and  that 
God  would  not  notice  his  cursing  such  a 

•d d   set.      Hinkle    declares   that  Smith 

said  they  were  a  d d  mob,  and  he  would 

play  hell  with  their  applecarts.  In  the  last 
meeting:  of  the  council  in  Nauvoo,  which 
fimith  attended  as  Mayor,  and  while  urging 
them  to  destroy  the  "Expositor,"  Smith 
cwore  like  a  trooper,  as  the  history  of  Han- 
cock County  shows.  He  was  imitating  his 
early  hero,  Burroughs,  his  model  Mahom- 
nied"  in  playing  religious  impostor, although 
an  infidel,  and  when  enraged  would  curse 
and  swear.  Rigdon  was  an  infidel  impostor 
also,  and  could  talk  as  we  have  cited,  and 
act  the  ruffian  and  cut-throat.  It  will  avail 
Mormons  nothing  to  deny  these  facts,  for  I 
<)uote  from  a  report  of  a  Committee  of  the 
United  States  Senate,  and  published  as  a 
Government  document  and  authority.  Mor- 
mons denounce  such  witnesses  as  liars, 
although  they  were  some  of  their  own 
leaders.  The  witnesses  testify  that  Rigdon 
and  Smith  were  behind  Arvard  in  organizing 
the  Danites,  and  that  they  knew  and  ap- 
proved of  their  fiendish  acts.  Their  own 
declarations  prove  it. 

Mormons  have  denounced  as  apostates, 
Iligdon,  the  author  of  the  fraud,  and  first 
vice-president ;  F.  G.  William,  second  vice- 
president,  Oliver  Cowdery,  David  Whitmer 
and  Martin  Harris  the  three  witnesses; 
Warren  Parish,  one  of  the  first  seventy; 
Leonard  Rich  and  Sylvester  Smith,  two  of 
the  seven  presidents  of  the  first  seventy; 
J.  F.Boynton  and  Luke  Johnson,  two  of  the 
twelve  apostles  ;  Stephen  Burnett  and  Zerah 
Oral  of  the  seventy;  W.  A.  Cowdery  and 
Cyrus  Smaling,  presiding  high  priests  It 
is  safe  to  say  that  from  the  start  in  Kirtland 
until  they  left  Nauvoo,  one-third  of  their 
apostles,  priests  aud  councillors  have  been 
denounced  as  apostates.  It  prove?  that 
these  leaders  were  knaves  who  went  into  it 
to  get  power  and  gain,  and  when  it  was  no 
longer  to  their  interest  they  renounced  the 
fraud.  The  worst  exposures  of  Mormonisin 
have  been  by  its  leaders,  those  highest  in 
authority.  As  we  have  shown  the  real 
author  of  the  system,  exposed  his  work  in 
getting  it  up,  and  its  fraudulent  origin.  A 
system  that  has  been  abandoned  by  its 
real  author,  and  denounced  by  him  as  a 
fraud,  that  has  been  denounced  by  one 
third  of  Its  leaders  as  a  Iraud,  and  that  has 
been  lead  by  scoundrels,  it'  the  declaration 
of  the  Church  against  these  apostate  leaders 
be  true,  is  a  fraud  of  the  vilest  character. 
We  accept  what  such  leaders  say  of  it,  and 
what  it  says  of  them.  Itx  is  pot  calling 
kettle  black.  Villains  have  fallen  out  and 
honest  people  learn  the  truth. 

Mormonisin  was  gotten  up  for  gain  to  its 
infidel  leaders.  The  Book  of  Doctrines  and 
Covenants  says,  "  Whoso  receiveth  you  re- 
ceiveth  me,  and  the  same  will  feed  you  and 
clothe  you,  and  giveyou  money,  and  he  who 
Joes  not  these  thing's  is  not  my  disciple." 


There  you  have  it.    You  cannot  be  a  disci- 
ple unless  you  give  money.    You   will  be 
damned  if  you  do  not.     Again:  "It   must 
needs  be  that  ye  save  all  the  money  that 
ye  can  and  gain   all  that  ye  can  in  right- 
eousness."   Again:     "It  is  wisdom  in  me 
that  my  servant  Martin  Harris  should   be 
an  example  unto  the  church,  in  laying  his 
moneys  before  the   bishop  of  the  church. 
And  this  is  a  law  unto  every  man  that  com- 
eth  unto  this  land,  to  receive  an   inherit- 
ance.    And  he  shall  do  it  with  his  money 
as  the  law  directs."     Again  :  "And  let  all 
the  moneys  that  can   be  spared,  it  matter- 
eth  not  unto  me  whether  it  be  little  or 
much,   be  sent  up  into  the  land  of  Zion, 
unto  those  I  have  appointed  to  receive  it." 
Again:  "And  let  all  preachers  who  have 
no  families  who  receive  moneys,  send  it  up 
unto  the  bishop  in  Zion,  or  to  the  bishop  iu 
Kirtland,  to  be  consecrated  for  the  bring- 
ing forth  of  the  revelations,  and  the  print- 
ing thereof;  and  the  establishing  of  Zion." 
Again :  "Behold  this  is  my  will,  even  ob- 
taining   moneys,    even    as    I    have    com- 
manded."   Again:    "He  that  sendeth   up 
moneys  to  the  land  of  Zion  shall  receive  an 
inheritance  in  this  world.    His  work   shall 
follow  him  also,  a  reward  in  the  world  to 
come."      Money,  money,  money.      Again : 
"  I  command  thee  that  thou  shalt  not  covet 
thine  own  property,  but  impart  it  freely  to 
to  printing  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  which 
contains  the  truths  of  the  world  of  God." 
Yea  verily.    Impart  a  portion  9f  thy  prop- 
erty, even  a  portion  of  thy  lands,  and  all 
save  the  support  of  thy  family."  Joe  was  not 
to  make  gain  out  of  the  fraud,  >we  are  told. 
Listen:  "  It  is  meet  that  my  servant  Joseph 
Smith  should  have  a  house  built  in  which 
to  live  and  translate."    And  again  :  "  It  is 
meet  that  my  servant  Sydney  Rigdon  should 
live  as  it  seemeth  him  good,  inasmuch  as 
he  keepeth  my  commandments."    Again  : 
"  Provide  for  him  (Joe)  food  and  raiment 
and  whatsoever  heneedeth."    Again  :  "  In 
corporeal  labor  thou   (Joe)  shalt  not  have 
strength,  for  this  is  not  thy  calling."    Joe 
was   born   tired.      Labor  never  could  call 
loud  enough  for  him  to  hear.      Read  the 
lying  revelation  of  January  19th,  1841,  in 
which  Joe  is  to  have  a  tavern  built  for  him 
in  which  to  make  money,  and  it  is  to  be  his 
and   his  children's    forever.      Oh,   no,  Joe 
was  not  to  make  gain  out  of  it.    The  apos- 
tles had  one  Judas  who  carried  the   bag. 
Mormons   have  their  tithing   arrangement, 
and  have  their  apostle  who  carries  the  bag. 
My  opponent  is  the  lineal  descendant  and 
successor  of  that  apostle  who  held  the  bag. 
Does  he  serve  Mormonism  for  naught? 

Mormonism  began  with  a  backslidden 
infidel  preacher,  Solomon  Spaulding.  It 
was  taken  up,  by  another  back-slidden 
infidel  preacher,  Sydney  Rigdon.  It  was 
given  to  the  world  by  au  admirer  of  Payne, 
an  infidel,  Joe  Smith.  Its  leaders  have 
largely  infidels,  who  used  the  fraud  to  dupe 
the  silly  for  gain.  When  they  abandon  it, 
they  go  out  into  infidelity.  Rigdon  lived  a 
confirmed  infidel  after  he  abandoned  it, 
and  died  aa  atheist.  Ib  is  meet  that  it 


SCO 


THE    BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


should  be  defended  in  Kirtland  by  a  re- 
hash of  infidel  attacks  on  the  Bible,  when 
its  fraudulent,  anti-scriptural  character  is 
exposed.  We  have  had  bitter  infidel 
attacks  on  the  origin  of  the  Books  of  the 
Bible,  on  the  accuracy  of  its  text,  on  the 
character  of  inspired  men,  on  its  statements 
and  teachings.  This  has  been  applauded 
by  the  infidels  in  the  audience.  They  know 
their  man.  they  know  the  work  he  is  doing, 
he  is  doing  their  work.  Moral  on  ism  and 


infidelity,  like  Herod  and  Pilate,  make 
friends  to  crucify  the  religion  of  Christ.  My 
opponent  challenged  me  to  debate  what  he 
failed  to  meet  in  this  debate.  Will  he,  as 
an  honest  infidel,  affirm  his  attacks  on  the 
Bible  in  debate.  I  will  meet  him  then 
under  his  true  colors.  It  would  be  out  of 
order  to  reply  to  his  infidelity,  introduced 
put  of  order  in  a  debate,  iu  which 
is  the  standard. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  SEVENTH  SPEECH. 


MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN: — The  audience  can  readily 
see  the  absurdity  of  my  opponent's  position 
in  claiming  that  ihePriesthood  wasnotgiven 
to  the  Christian  ministry,  and  that  there 
never  were  put  two  High  Priests  of  the 
order  of  Melchizedek,  viz.,  Melchizedek  and 
Christ.  Moses  says,  '  the  Lord  your  God 
shall  raise  up  a  prophet  like  unto  me." 
This  language  points  out  the  official  char- 
acter of  Christ;  that  he  was  to  te  like 
unto  Moaes ;  and  it  is  emphatically  stated 
that  Christ  was  a  Melchizedek  priest,  and 
for  him  to  be  like  unto  Moses,  Moses  also 
must  have  been  a  Melchizedek  priest.  It  is 
definitely  declared  that  he  was  a  Priesfc. 
My  opponeut.confesses  the  truth  when  he 
says  that  Moses  was  not  an  Aaronic priest; 
but  he  then  goes  on  and  makes  the  ridicu- 
lous statement  that  he  was  not  a  Melchiz- 
edek priest  either  ;  and  when  I  pressed  him 
to  the  wall,  showing  there  were  only  two 
lines,  he  endeavored  to  answer  by  craft  and 
wit,  saying  that  it  did  not  follow  because  a 
man  was  not  an  American,  that  he  must  be 
a  Irishman  ;  that  he  might  be  a  Dutchman. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  Priesthood,  there  is 
no  chance  for  a  third  party;  there  are  but 
two  lines  of  priesthood  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  at  all ;  hence,  in  this  case  it  is  either 
the  American  or  Irishman  there  is  no 
show  for  the  Dutchman  at  all,  if  he  wishes 
to  represent  it  in  that  way.  My  opponent 
puts  himself  in  the  position  of  saying  that 
Moses  was  neither  an  Aaronic  or  Melchiz- 
edek priest,  but  at  the  same  time  he  must 
admit  that  he  was  a  priest.  But  the  Bible 
epeaks  of  but  two  kinds  of  priests,  and 
Moses  must  of  necessity  have  belonged  to 
one  line  or  the  other,  and  he  was  an  offici- 
ating priest  before  an  Aaronic  priest  was 
ever  heard  of,  hence,  the  logic  comes  with 
all  the  force  of  certainty  that  lie  was  a  Mel- 
chizedek priest,  and  this  effectually  knocks 
bis  Dutchman  out  of  line. 

Christ    as    a    Melchizedek    High    Priest 
ordained  a  ministry  set  them  apart  con- 


secrated them  :  that  he  might  send  therm 
forth  to  preach.  When  he  ordained  them 
he  must  have  conferred  on  them  the  Mel* 
chizedek  priesthood,  for  Christ  held  thai 
authority,  and  the  office  of  an  Apostle  was 
not  in  the  Aaronic  Priesthood.  Men  were 
called  in  the  same  way  to  offices  in  the 
Priesthood  in  the  Christian  dispensation, 
that  they  were  under  the  law,  viz:  by  revela- 
tion from  God  ;  hence,  Paul  says,  ''As  God 
hath  distributed  to  every  one,  as  the  Lord 
has  called  every  one,  so  ordain  I  in  all  the 
churches."  Ordaining  was  the  conferring 
of  the  office  of  the  Priesthood  upon  them. 
Hence,  when  God  spoke  through  the 
prophets  at  Antioch,  to  separate  Barna- 
nas  and  Saul  to  the  ministry,  they  did  so 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Peter  makes  it 
definite  that  the  Melchizedek  Priesthood 
was  in  the  Christian  church. 

"  Ye  are  a  Royal  Priesthood."    I  Peter  2:9. 

Melchizedek 'was  king  even  on  earth,  and 
Christ  who  holds  the  royal  authority  is  an 
Apostle,  High  Priest  and  King,  and  pre- 
sides over  his  own  House,  the  church.  He 
is  to  reign  as  king  of  kings  and  Lord  of 
Lords,  holding  the  royal  priesthood. 

Ye  are  "an  Holy  Priesthood  to  offer  up 
spiritual  sacrifices."  1  Peter  2:5.  The 
church  of  Christ  was  a  holy  one,  and 
"Royal  Priesthood  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices."  Yet  my  opponent  has  the 
audacious  assumption  to  assert  that  neither 
the  Aaronic  or  Melchizedek  Priesthood 
were  over  conferred  in  the  Christian  church. 
It  is  sheer  nonsense  and  stupidity  to  talk 
about  a  Priesthood  and  no  priests,  or  priests 
and  no  Priesthood.  It  was  the  belief  in  a 
conferred  authority  in  the  Christian  church 
that  gave  rise  to  ecclesiastical  conflicts  all 
along  down  from  the  Apostles  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  It  was  in  view  of  this  that  scores 
of  Episcopalian  ministers  in  England  went 
to  the  Catholic  church,  and  were  re-baptized 
and  re-ordained,  believing  in  the  necessity 
of  authority  in  the  church,  and  that  if  it 
was  to  be  found  any  where,  so  far  as  they 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


361 


knew,  it  was  among  the  Catholics.  But 
my  opponent  and  his  church,  are  all  kings 
and  priests,  anyway  ;  men  and  women,  old 
and  young,  with  or  without  an  ordination, 
just  as  it  suits  their  fancy,  and  to  cap  the 
climax  of  absurdity,  they  imagine  that  they 
are  reigning  now.  Tertulian  says.  "  It  was 
customary  among  heretics  to  confound  the 
offices  of  the  clergy  and  laity  together." 
St.  Jerome  observes,  "They  (the  early 
Christians)  reckoned  that  to  be  no  church, 
which  had  no  priests."  Eusebius  says, 
"Origin  received  the  ordination  to  the 
Priesthood,  at  Cesarea,"  page  243.  Braden 
further  says  that  Christ  abideth  a  priest 
continually,  therefore,  no  one  could  receive 
the  Melchizedek  Priesthood  after  him.  If 
this  position  is  true,  then  Christ  was  never 
a  Melchizedek  High  Priest,  for  Melchizedek, 
who  was  before  Christ  in  the  earthly  career 
•was  made  a  High  Priest  continually: — 
4i  Abideth  a  priest  continually,"  says  Paul. 
Heb.  7:3.  Jesus  as  I  have  shown  is  an 
Apostle,  and  so  abideth,  yet  we  have  many 
others.  But  how  is  the  church  a  Royal 
Priesthood?  By  all  of  the  people  being 
priests  or  kings?  No;  it  is  in  the  sense 
expressed  in  Ex.  19  :  6  ; —  "  Ye  shall  be  unto 
me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  an  holy 
nation."  Yet  all  were  not  priests,  but  cer- 
tain ones  were  consecrated  to  the  office  of 
the  Priesthood,  and  performed  the  services 
of  the  same,  and  thus  served  the  people. 
They  were  called  a  kingdom  of  priests, 
because  they  had  the  Priesthood  and  priests 
among  them;  and  it  is  in  this  same  sense 
that  Peter  called  the  church  of  God  on 
earth  a  "  Royal  Priesthood."  Braden  is 
neither  a  king  or  a  priest,  as  he  has  affirmed 
before  this  audience;  neither  is  any  other 
person  in  his  church. 

All  of  the  sons  of  Zedekiah,  king  of  Judah, 
were  not  slain  by  the  king  of  Babylon  as 
claimed  by  my  opponent.  The  Bible  does 
not  say  all  of  them  were  slain.  It  states 
that  they  slew  the  sons  of  Zedekiah  before 
his  eyes.  2  Kings,  25:7.  To  have  slain  all 
of  his  sons  would  have  made  Ezekiel  a  false 
prophet;  for  he  prophecied: — "Thus  saith 
the  Lord  God ;  I  will  take  the  highest 
branch  of  the  highestcedar,  and  will  set  it ; 
I  will  crop  off  from  the  top  of  his  young 
twigs  a  tender  one,  and  will  plant  it  upon  a 
high  mountain  and  eminent.  In  the  moun- 
tain of  the  height  of  Israel  will  I  plant  it. 
Ezekiel  17:22;  23. 

The  cedar  represents  the  kingdom  of 
Israel;  the  highest  branch  was  the  reign- 
ing king,  Zede>;iah  ;  the  tender  young  twig, 
represents  one  of  tiie  kings'  sous,  who  was 
to  be  placed  "upon  a  high  mountain  (in  a 
goodly  land)  and  eminent,  and  it  shall 
bring  forth  boughs  and  bear  fruit  and  be  a 
goodly  cedar,"  etc. 

The  prophet  said  on  this  continent,  "Will 
ye  say  that  the  sons  of  Zedekiah  were  not 
slain,  all  except  it  were  Mulek?  Yea,  and 
do  you  not  behold  that  the  seed  of  Zedekiah 
is  with  us,  and  they  wero  driven  out  of 
Jerusalem?"  Mosiah  11:12,  and  Hele- 
man  2:27.  So  Ezekiel's  prophecy  had  its 
fulfillment  by  one  of  Zedekiah '«  sons  coming 


to  America  and  aiding  in  establishing  a 
colony. 

The  church  has  been  criticised  as  not 
being  after  the  apostolic  pattern  because  it 
has  in  its  organization  a  chief  Presiding 
Apostle  or  High  Priest  or  Presiding  Elder, 
over  the  whole  church.  But  this  is  in  har- 
mony rather  than  in  conflict  with  the  New 
Testament. 

Dr.  Wm.  Smith  says  concerning  the 
apostle  James,  (the  less).  "From  henceforth 
we  always  find  him  equal,  or  in  his  own  de- 
partment superior, to  the  very  Chiefest 
apostles,  Peter,  John  and  Paul.  For  by  this 
time  he  had  been  appointed  to  preside  over 
the  infant  church  in  its  most  important 
centre,  in  a  position  equivalent  to  that  of 
Bishop,  [High  Priest  or  President.]  The 
pre-eminence  is  evident  throughout  the 
after  history  of  the  apostles."  Smith's 
Bible  Dictionary,  page  237. — (Acts  12:  17  ; 
15: 13,  19  ;  21: 18  ;  and  Gal.  2:  9.) 

While  Christ  was  on  earth  the  apostles 
disputed  as  to  who  would  occupy  the  chief 
seat  after  his  death  or  ascension.  Eusebious 
informs  us  that  James  occupied  the  chief 
seat,  or  that  of  President.  Hence  he  pre- 
sided at  the  conference  in  Jerusalem  when 
there  was  a  large  representation  of  the 
church  from  abroad  present,  including 
Peter,  John  aud  Paul,  and  gave  decision 
upon  the  most  important  matters  brought 
before  the  conference.  We  have  no  history 
of  this  apostle  for  ten  years  after  the  ascen- 
sion of  the  Savior,  when  we  find  him  pre- 
siding at  Jerusalem  over  the  whole  church, 
and  Peter,  John  and  Paul  recognize  him  in 
that  position. 

But  again,  objects  my  opponent :  "They, 
have  presidents,  vice-presidents, counselors 
presiding  elders,  etc.,  in  their  organization." 
Not  as  gifts  set  in  the  church.  These  are 
but  appellative  terms  defining  the  right  of 
precedence  in  business  orgoverment  of  offi- 
cers of  the  same  rank.  For  illustration: 
The  especial  gifts  to  qualify  one  to  preside 
over  the  church  is  that  of  an  Apostle  and 
Prophet ;  but  if  the  party  possessing  such 

fifts  was  not  chosen  by  the  voice  of  the 
ody  to  preside,  he  would  not  be  called  the 
President,  nor  be  President.  If  a  person 
was  called  by  the  voice  of  the  body  to  act  in 
the  office  of  President,  when  he  did  not 
have  the  gifts  belonging  to  that  office,  he 
could  not  properly  discharge  the  duties  of 
it,  any  more  than  an  ignorant,  and  blind, 
deaf  and  dumb  man  could  fill  properly  the 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States, 
although  he  would  be  called  President. 

The  apostle  Paul  referring  to  James, 
Peter  and  John,  calls  them  "piHars," 
but  pillars  was  not  the  designated  title 
of  the  especial  gifts  of  these  apostles 
James  pieaided  at  the  conference  at  Je- 
rusalem, and  was  therefore  the  Presi- 
dent, and  you  can  call  him  President  James 
and  the  term  will  convey  the  true  idea  of 
the  office  he  held  in  the  church,  that  of  an 
Apostle,  Prophet,  or  the  Presiding  Elder  of 
the  entire  church  there,  as  he  presided  over 
all  other  elders. 

In  my  argument  last  evening  I  showed 


302 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


that  the  position   was  untenable  and   un- 
scriptural  that  was  held  by  many,  viz.,  that 
God  held  his  lastintercourse  with  thehuman 
family  eighteen  centuries  ago,  and  that  he 
•would  no  more  speak  to  his  children  through 
Inspired  men  ;  for  that  he  had  himself  de- 
clared  by  the  prophets  that  he  would  set 
his  hand  the  second  time  to  recover  Israel 
and   the  dispersed   of  Judah,    which   time 
was  after  the  falling  away  from  the  truth 
as  it  was  established  by  Jesus  and  the  apos- 
tles, and  to  support  this  quoted  to  you  some 
twenty-three  passages  of  Scripture  directly 
in  point  as  proof;  but  lam  met  with  the 
accustomed  dodge  in  reply,  that  they  have 
not  the  least  application  whatever  to  the 
subject— not    the  slightest;    oh,  no!    My 
opponent  can  goon  with  a  loner  statement 
containing  naught  but  confusion,  I  do  not 
say  argument,  for  it  is  not,  to  show  you 
that  all  inspired  men  and  all  communica- 
tion between  God  and  man  was  limited  to 
the  days  of  the  apostles ;  and    he  judges 
it  germain  to  the  question,  although  he  has 
not  a  single  passage  from  the  word  of  God 
to  support  the  theory  ;  but  if  I  take  up  pas- 
sage after   passage,    writer   after   writer, 
prophecy  after,aprophecy,  and  read  to  you 
that  the  Lord  will  have  inspired  servants 
after  that  time,  and  "plead  with  them  face 
to  face" — communicate  with  them  as  with 
Moses — that  he  will  send  again  his  angel 
with  "the  everlasting  gospel  to  preach  to 
them  that  dwell   on  the   earth — to  every 
nation,  kindred,  tongue  and  people  in  the 
hour  of  judgment   and  retribution  in  the 
earth,  and  call  upon  his  servants  to  make 
known  the  same  to  the  people;  that  as  he 
did  in  the  days  of  Noah,  the  time  of  Lot, 
and  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era. 
so  shall  it  be  at  his  second  coming,  and  that 
in  that  time  his  hand  shall  be  revealed,  his 
power  manifest  and  his  ensign  lifted  up  for 
the  nations  to  behold,  I  am  answered  with: 
''They  have  not  the  slightest  bearing  upon 
the  question."    No;  very  good  talk  upon 
the  question  of  the  gathering  of  the  Jews, 
but  no  application  here.    Why  has  it  not? 
Simply  because  it  has  not;  that  is  the  wise 
reason   ottered,    and  you   are   expected  to 
swallow  it,  without  knowing  or  asking  the 
reason  why.    The  question  under  consider- 
ation is,  as  to  whether  the  church  I  am  rep- 
resenting is  in  fact  the  church  of  God  and 
accepted  with  him ;  and  it  occurs  to  me  to 
be  very  applicablewhether hehas anything 
to  do  with  it  or  not.    Whether  it  is  estab- 
lished in  accordance  with  the  prediction  of 
the  prophets  or  not;  whether  his  hand  is 
revealed  in  its  establishment  or  not;  and 
whether  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,  a  gos- 
pel containing  God's  word,  the  ancient  faith 
and  the  gifts  of  his  Holy  Spirit  is  preached 
as  a  witness  or  not. 

And  he  turns  around  and  would  feign 
make  you  believe  that  some  man  was  smart 
enough  to  get  all  of  this  up;  have  perfect 
arrangement  and  time  with  ajl  of  the  pro- 
phecies, and  even  preach  the  truth  of  God 
In  order  to  deceive  the  people,  By  this 
method  of  assailing  the  faith  he  deliber- 
ately throws  away  the  rule  laid  down  in 


the  Bible:  "He  that  abideth  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  he  hath  both  the  Father  and 
the  Son."  "He  that  is  of  God  heareth 
God's  words;  and  "No  man  knoweth  the 
things  of  God  but  the  Spiritof  God."  Thus 
he  stands  convicted  of  discarding  the  stand- 
ard and  setting  up  for  opposition  to  my 
arguments  the  methods  of  ridicule,  abuse, 
slander  and  vituperation  that  Satan  used 
against  the  preaching  of  Noah ;  that  he 
met  Jesus,  Peter  and  Paul  with  from  the 
outset  of  their  work,  and  with  which  he  so- 
enraged  the  people  of  London  that  they 
exultingly  dragged  Mr.  Wesley  through  its 
streets  by  the  hair  of  the  head  in  order  to 
ease  their  consciences. 

That  is  one  way  of  meeting  men,  but  it  is 
not,  nor  never  was  the  manner  of  him  "who- 
spake  as  never  man  spake  ;"  neither  of  his 
servants  in  any  age.  Why?  says  my  oppo- 
nent Mohammed  and  the  meanest  men  of 
earth  said  some  good  things.  What  has 
that  to  do  with  the  rule  laid  down  by  Jesus 
and  his  apostles  as  to  trying  his  servants  ? 
I  have  asked  you  time  and  again  if  you 
would  abide  by  the  word  of  God  or  discard 
it  and  abide  by  your  prejudices.  If  Moham- 
med filled  this  rule  and  did,  in  his  teach- 
ings, abide  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  then 
God  was  with  him.  and  you  cannot  gainsay 
the  proposition  so  Iqng  as  you  believe  in  the 
teachings  of  Jesus.  But  Mohammed  did 
not  abide  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ;  did  not 
even  claim  to;  and  consequently  he  was 
not  what  he  claimed  to  be  when  tried  by 
that  rule,  although  he  may  have  taught 
many  good  things.  Satan  taught  and  quoted 
from  the  Bible  when  he  tempted  Jesus,  and 
said,  "It  is  written  he  shall  give  his  an  v,  l» 
charge  concerning  thee ;"  but  here  he  stop- 
ped ;  he  had  taken  a  little  Bible,  bu'  'v-oufd 
not  abide  in  the  remainder.  Consequently 
he  was  not  of  God.  for  he  "abode  not  in  the. 
truth." 

So  Mr.  Campbell  had  a  little  Bible  and 
he  clung  to  that  well:  "baptism  in  water 
for  the  remission  of  sins  ;"  wherever  he  got 
it  makes  no  difference,  as  to  this  contro- 
versy ;  the  trouble  with  him  was  he  stop- 
ped there  and  failed  to  abide  in  the  doctrine 
of  Christ;  for  he  did  not  teach  "the  bap- 
tism of  the  spirit."  Paul  also  taught 
besides  this:  "By  one  spirit  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body."  And  John  con- 
firms it  with:  "For  there  are  three  that 
bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  these  three 
are  one;  And  there  are  three  that  bear 
witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the  Water 
and  the  Blood  ;  and  these  three  agree  in 
one." 

Now,  if  the  church  I  represent  does  not 
abide  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  it  is  not 
Jesus' church  and  not  accepted  with  him, 
as  a  church,  although  there  may  be  good 
men  and  women  therein  who  are  doing; 
good  and  accepted  with  him  that  far.  But 
if  its  doctrines  and  teachings  are  in  har- 
mony with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  then  we 
are  sowing  the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom, 
and  it  is  his  church  and  accepted  of  him; 
and  it  makes  no  difference  whether  there  be 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


863 


come  bad  men  and  those  who  take  advan- 
tage of  the  true  faith  to  work  evil  or  not. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven — the  church — was 
likened  unto  "a  net  cast  into  the  sea  that 
should  gather  both  the  good  and  the  bad." 
And  it  ought  not  to  surprise  any  one  to  find 
in  it  some  bad  as  well  as  good.  Let  me  give 
vou  a  further  illustration:  "Only  a  short 
time  ago  I  took  up  the  "Truth  Seeker,"  pub- 
lished in  New  York,  and  read  the  account 
of  a  Disciple  preacher  down  here  in  Ohio, 
•who  had  been  carrying  on  a  religious  meet- 
ing with  much  success,  but  who,  before  the 
close  of  the  revival  was  taken  by  the  officers 
as  a  thief  and  a  burglar.  What  fairness  or 
argument  do  you  think  it  would  prove  for 
me  to  hold  up  this  example  to  you  and  say : 
Ah !  yes.  here  is  your  Christianity  and  un- 
der take  to  condemn  his  entire  church  by  it. 
So  I  might  enumerate  the  instances  by  the 
dozen  in  every  church  or  denomination, 
but  what  would  it  prove?  Nothing  what- 
ever as  against  the  denomination,  unless  I 
further  showed  that  this  work  was  done  in 
carrying  out  the  principles  and  faith  of  the 
denomination. 

In  the  first  age  of  Christianity,  many, 
after  receiving  Jesus'  words  and  faith, 
turned  away  and  brought  forth  in  their 
lives  evil  fruits  ;  turned  to  be  thieves,  and 
liars,  and  adulterers,  and  general  adepts  of 
crime  and  all  manner  of  lasciviousness :  as 
witness  the  thief  on  the  cross  ;  the  traitor 
of  the  twelve;  the  wicked  of  Corinth,  5 
chapter,  1  Cor.,  who  revealed  in  debauch- 
ery and  sin  ;  the  polygamous  followers  of 
Nicolas,  one  of  the  seven,  chosen  for  his 
wisdom,  justice  and  being  blessed  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Acts  6,  and  Rev.  2:6  and  15. 
The  detestable  things  practiced  in  Tbya- 
tira;  the  bigotry,  selfishness  and  barreness 
of  the  church  of  the  Laodicean s  ;  and  of 
others  of  the  churches  of  Asia,  and  it  seems 
that  these  were  the  only  ones  that  came 
near  enough  to  the  truth  in  the  Revelator's 
time  to  claim  even  a  notice  of  instruction 
from  Jesus. 

But  by  reason  of  this  turning  from  the 
faith  and  practicing  evil  of  those  who  were 
once  in  the  faith  shall  I  say,  or  will  he  say, 
that  therefore  Jesus  was  a  bad  teacher. 
Peter's  doctrine's  were  not  the  truth  and 
Paul's  exhortations  and  preaching  were  not 
in  harmony  with  morality  and  decency? 
No,  sir.  Such  a  conclusion  is  monstrous, 
illegitimate,  absurd,  unless  I  further  goon, 
and  show  that  in  carrying  out  these  things 
they  were  also  abiding  in  the  principles  and 
doctrines  taught  by  these  worthies. 

Oh,  but  I  must  not  make  this  argument, 
he  savs.  Why?  You  are  attacking  the 
Bible!  Who  is  attacking  the  Bible?  The 
one  that  makes  an  argument  in  accordance 
with  the  Bible,  or  the  one  who  when  his 
argument  is  applied  to  the  Bible  is  found  to 
be  working  against  it?  Throughout  the  dis- 
cussion I  have  appealed  to  the  Bible  ami  that 
•which  harmonizes  with  Bible  teachings  for 
my  proofs.  My  opponent  has  from  the  out- 
set refused  to  meet  me  upon  this  fair,  true 
and  (if/reed  ground  of  controversy,  but 
instead,  has  throughout  the  discussion  from 


the  very  first  night,  resorted  for  hi*  argu- 
ment to  ridicule,  methods  of  villifying, 
slander,  obscene  remarks,  old  wives'  tales, 
fables,  lying  stories,  which,  although  start- 
ing from  nothing,  soon,  like  the  story  of  the 
"  three  black  crows,"  when  traced  back  are 
found  to  be  utterly  foolish  and  ridiculous. 
Take  an  illustration : — I  assisted  in  running 
one  of  these  stories  down  at* one  time, 
through  a  number  of  the  very  persons  he 
has  mentioned  as  witnesses  :  Wrn.  Bryant, 
David  Booth,  Ezra  Pierce,  Orin  Reed,  Abel 
Chase,  Orlando Saunders,  J.  H.  Gilbert,  the 
Jackaways,  Dr.  John  Stafford  of  Rochester, 
New  York,  and  Thomas  Taylor  of  Manches- 
ter. Twelve  persons  who  were  cited  as  the 
persons  who  knew  about  the  truth  of  the 
stories  told  on  the  Smiths.  Tucker  and 
Howe  in  their  published  works  against  the 
Mormons  had  cited  some  of  these  same 
parties  as  persons  who  knew.  And  what 
indeed,  could  you  expect  but  that  I  should 
be  completely  astonished,  to  find  that  not 
a  single  one  of  these  parties  knew  a  single 
material  fact  against  a  single  one  of  the 
Smith  family,  or  Oliver  Cowdery,  Martin 
Harris  or  David  Whitmer,  the  parties  who, 
together  with  the  Smiths,  had  been  most 
vilely  assaulted  and  slandered.  The  story 
of  the  digging  for  money  and  the  cave  will 
illustrate  what  these  witnesses  knew. 
When  we  first  began  to  talk  with  Mr. 
Bryan  the  said  he  did  not  himself  know 
anything  about  them,  but  they  had  a  great 
cave  over  there  in  the  hill  where  they  lived 
and  reveled  all  night.  He  did  not  know 
just  where  himself  but  Mr.  Booth  and 
Pierce  could  tell  us  all  about  it.  But  it  is 
no  use  to  take  the  trouble  to  go  and  see 
them  said  he,  for  you  can  just  buy  Tucker'a 
work  and  get  it  all.  However  he  directed 
us  to  Mr.  Booth's.  Calling  on  Booth,  he  did 
not  know  a  single  thing  ;  but  said  the  cave 
was  there  now,  and  they  used  to  meet  there, 
or  that  was  what  was  told  ;  he  had  never 
seen  the  cave,  but  Squire  Pierce  knew  all 
about  it.  It  was  always  "they,"  that 
incomprehensible  every  body  and  nobody, 
"they."  Bryant,  nor  Booth  nor  none  of 
them  could  tell  who  "  they  "  were,  whether 
Smiths,  Cowder;ye,  Harris,  the  Spaniaids 
or  who?  But  "  they."  We  went  to  Squire 
Pierce's:  Oh,  y<«!  he  could  tell  us  all 
about  it.  He  said  be  lived  three  miles  from 
them,  that  he  puiVa-i  sticks  with  Joe  one 
time,  he  knew.  lit)  twild  tell  us  about  the 
cave,  and  digging  lot  money,  and  counter- 
feiting, all  about  ft.  '.The  cave  is  right 
over  there  in  the  hh.1 ;  We  still  pressed 
him  for  a  particular  lcta*\on;  we  told  him 
we  wanted  to  go  and  see  i1?  and  look  at  the 
"sheep  bones."  At  this  \S^e  old  man  col- 
lapsed. Said  he  could  not  find  the  place, 
the  cave  had  fallen  in  and  t>\*  sheep  bones 
were  all  buried.  Not  even  the  spot  could 
be  found.  But,  he  said,  Abe!  Chase  was  in 
there  once,  and  lie  could  give  us  the  facts. 
We  went  to  this  Chase;  he  »aid,  "No,  I 
never  saw  the  cave,  never  sa  v  them  dig 
for  money.  "  He  sent  us  to  Gilbert  and  the 
Jackawayn.  Gilbert  did  no<  pretend  to 
know  anything  about  it.  We  went  to  tb«" 


884 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Jackaways;  the  Jackaways  said,  "Yes, 
they  dug  for  money.  The  large  holes  are 
over  therein  the  hill  now."  But,  we  asked, 
who  dug?  "They;  " — they  did  not  know  who 
"they"  were,  but  the  holes  were  over  there 
Jn  the  hill.  What  hill?  we  asked,  the  hill 
Mr.  Smith  lived  on?  No,  not  where  Mr. 
Smith  lived.  How  do  you  know  the  holes 
were  made  while  digging  for  money  ?  They 
did  not  know  that,  but  they  did  know 
there  were  some  holes  over  there  that 
looked  as  though  they  had  been  made  by 
some  body  digging,  but  the  holes  may  have 
been  from  some  other  cause.  But  Chase 
did  say  his  sister,  Sally,  had  a  stone  through 
which  she  claimed  to  see  things,  and  he 
thought  that  she  could.  Here  is  the  truth 
of  the  matter:  it  was  the  opponents  of 
Smith  who  claimed  to  see  through  the  stone 
and  not  Smith.  This  is  the  "black  crow 
story "  duplicated.  In  this  instance  we 
found  there  was  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Smith  once  lived  there.  That  was  all.  Mr. 
Smith  had  the  Urim  and  Thummiu 
and  never  at  any  time  pretended  to 
use,  or  that  he  could  use  or  see  things, 
or  divine  or  locate  money,  or  property  or 
anything  elHe  through  the  stone  baby's  foot 
of  Sally  Chase  or  anybody  else.  These  are 
all  the  scandalous  lies  and  inventions  of 
the  people. 

Take  the  jumbled  mess  called  affidavits 
in  Howe's  book,  the  work  which  I  have 
proved  beyond  question  to  be  composed  of 
false,  garbled,  perverted  passages  and  state- 
ments from  our  works,  deliberately  made 
to  deceive  by  some  one,  and  what  have  we? 
A  thing  from  the  very  manner  in  which  it 
is  written  ;  the  contradictions,  and  the  fact 
that  the  originals  were  burned  as  soon  as 
these  pretended  copies  were  put  in  Howe's 
book,  that  will  prevent  any  man  accepting 
them  who  is  honestly  criticising  the  work 
of  Mr.  Smith.  Braden  only  read  a  small 
portion  of  these  pretended  affidavits.  Tho 
whole  wouid  have  floored  him  without  a 
notice  or  criticism  from  me.  Peter  Ingersoll 
is  made  to  say  entirely  too  much;  he  was 
acquainted  with  all  the  hog  paths  and  sheep 
tracks  on  the  Smith  farm  ;  the  cows  could 
not  be  milked  without  Ingersoll's  knowl- 
edge; and  he  finds  out  that  they  are  hiding 
their  cows  in  the  woods  to  deceive,  and 
knew  about  other  peoples'  cows  that  were 
hidden;  yet  in  the  same  affidavit  he  says, 
"I  told  him  (Joseph)  I  would  let  him  have 
the  money,"  and  he  presented  Mr.  Hale  for 
security.  Mr.  Hale  presented  for  security, 
yet  he  was  far  away  in  Pennsylvania  and 
Peter  Ingersoll  had  never  saw  or  heard  of 
him  to  this  time,  except  through  Joseph 
Smith.  But  Smith  would  not  take  his 
money,  and  then  Ingersoll  is  made  to  say : 
Smith  told  him,  "I  went  to  Palmyra  and 
met  that  damned  fool  Martin  Harris,  and 
told  him  that  I  had  a  command  to  ask  the 
first  honest  man  I  met  for  fifty  dollars  in 
money,  and  he  gave  it  to  me. 

Then  he  is  made  to  say :  That  he  saw 
William  after  they  visited  Waterloo  and 
William  said,  "we  do  better  there  than 
here;  we  were  too  well  known  to  do  much 


here."  Then  take  the  tale  of  the  frock  of 
sand,  the  Canada  Bible  story,  the  toll  gate- 
story,  the  Sun  story,  raising  chests  of 
money  to  the  top  of" the  ground,  the  old 
man's  water-witching  and  contortions  while- 
Alvin  his  son  witched,  notwithstanding 
Alvin  had  been  dead  then  at  least  two- 
years,  all  in  this  pretended  affidavit.  I» 
there  a  man  under  the  Sun  foolish  enough, 
to  believe  it? 

Take  Wm.  Stafford's  pretended  statement 
with  regard  to  the  "black  sheep  story,"  it 
is  even  worse  than  that  of  Peter  Ingersoll t 
if  possible.  His  own  son  Dr.  Thomas  Staf- 
ford says  :  "I  have  heard  that  story,  but  it 
js  not  true,  I  was  living  at  home  at  that 
time.  They  never  stole  a  sheep  from  my 
father  I  aru  sure."  Mr.  Orlando  Saunder's- 
who  proved  to  be  the  best  acquainted  with 
the  Smith  family  of  any  party  living  any- 
where near  Manchester  or  Palmyra,  New- 
York,  being  their  near  neighbor,  says  they 
were  honest,  industrious  and  upright,  and 
the  only  thing  that  could  be  said  truthfully 
against  them  was  that  they  were  very  poor 
and  worked  for  a  living.  And  the  Presby- 
terian minister  who  went  around  for  affida- 
vits did  not  get  a  different  story  from  him 
either. 

This  Gilbert  tried  to  get  his  brother, 
Lorenzo  Saunders,  who  was  only  9  years  of 
age  in  1830,  to  swear  that  he  saw  Sidney 
Rigdon  at  Smiths'  in  1827,  and  he  refused 
to  make  the  statement;  and  yet,  Braden 
has  reported  it  in  this  discussion  as  though 
it  was  true  and  that  he  had  his  affidavit  to- 
this  effect.  I  have  noticed  invariably  one 
thing  during  this  discussion  and  that  i* 
that  a  story  never  loses  in  size  after  it 
reaches  Braden's  hands,  and  although  itia 
but  a  mere  rumor,  he  tells  it  with  all  the 
avidity  and  positiveness  that  belongs  to- 
the  statement  of  facts. 

Then  there  is  the  long  pretended  state- 
ment of  Willard  Chase  which  condemn* 
itself  if  he  would  read  it  all,  and  so  of 
Parley  Chase,  David  Stafford,  Henry  Harris, 
Abigail  and  Lucy  Harris,  Joshua  Stafford. 
This  Stafford  family  were  whales  to  testify, 
they,  like  Howe,  were  mad  because  some  of 
their  relations  were  Latter  Day  Saints,  and 
they  wanted  to  do  something  lest  the  people 
might  think  they  were  leaning  that  way. 
That  would  be  such  a  disgrace,  you  know. 
Then  there  is  Nichols,  Capron,  Stoddard, 
Ford,  Th.  P.  Baldwin,  yes,  their  disinter- 
ested judge,  mixed  in  with  these  slanderers 
of  Mr.  Smith's  family;  when  the  same  man 
just  before  the  removal  of  the  family  from 
New  York  went  and  persuaded  the  old  lady 
Smith  to  come  to  his  house  and  take  care  of 
and  nurse  his  wife  through  along  sickness. 
Then  to  cap  the  climax  Braden  introduces 
his  51  witnesses,  this  Baldwin  being  one. 
and  makes  them  all  say:  "Martin  Harris 
was  a  man  who  had  a  handsome  property 
and  in  matters  of  business  his  word  wa» 
considered  good."  Yet  he  has  continually 
assaulted  this  .  same  man's  character 
throughout  this  controversy.  They  did  not 
like  Harris'  religion,  and  that  was  all  that 
could  be  said  against  him ;  but  aa  all  of  the 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


others  of  these  wicked,  false,  corrupt  and 
slanderous  statements  tney  are  made  to 
Bay  :  "they  were  considered,"  so  and  so. 

The  following  is  the  statement  set  out  by 
Braden's  51  witnesses: 

"  And  in  reference  to  all  with  whom  we 
were  acquainted  ;  that  have  embraced  Mor- 
monism  from  this  neighborhood;  we  are 
compelled  to  say  they  were  very  visionary, 
and  most  of  them  destitute  of  moral  charac- 
ter, and  without  influence  in  this  commu- 
nity ;  and  this  may  account  why  they  were 
permitted  to  go  on  with  their  impositions 
undisturbed." 

Did  you  ever  hear  such  wise  conclusions? 
Because  they  were  destitute  of  moral  char- 
acter and  influence  they  were  permitted  to 
go  on  undisturbed;  but  if  they  had  had  a 
good  moral  character  and  a  good  influence 
that  neighborhood  would  have  disturbed 
them.  Well,  I  think  myself  they  would 
have  been,  if  these  51  men  ever  signed  that 
statement.  This  is  on  the  same  ground 
that  theCampbellites  over  about  Hiram  put 
their  claim  for  disturbing  Smith  and  Rig- 
don  with  tar  and  feathers,  I  suppose.  Their 
own  history  states  Rigdon  h&d  a,  good  moral 
influence.  Next  I  turn  to  his  new  witness, 
Jeffries,  who  got  acquainted  with  Rigdon 
in  1844,  when  Rigdon  did  the  business  for 
the  Mormons  in  Nau  voo,  so  he  says;  but  Rig- 
don did  not  do  the  business  for  them 
neither  in  1844,  1843  or  any  other  time  when 
they  were  in  Nau  voo.  He  was  in  poor  health 
when  at  Nauvoo,  and  did  but  little  of  any- 
thing then,  except  to  act  as  Postmaster,  and 
in  18-14  he  lived  in  Pittsburg,  and  was  in 
charge  of  the  church  in  Pittsburg  in  the  year 
1844.  He  never  told  Jeffries  any  such  thing  at 
any  time,  and  never  at  any  time  in  his  life 
claimed  or  pretended  to  claim  he  ever  knew 
anything  about  Joseph  Smith  until  after 
October,  1830.  I  have  read  to  you  his  own 
published  letters  over  his  own  signature; 
not  what  his  enemies  said  about  him,  and 
he  lived  and  died  firm  in  the  faith,  claiming 
that  he  was  the  proper  bead  of  the  church 
after  the  death  of  the  other  two  Presidents, 
as  he  was  the  second  counsellor  to  the 
President. 

Braden  can  not,  as  he  states,  bring  old 
citizens  of  Kirt land  who  will  testify  to  his 
stuff.  I  have  challenged  him  from  the  first 
to  do  so,  and  he  has  not  put  a  single  one  on 
the  stand.  He  culled  in  one  of  his  own 
men,  a  Campbellite  preacher,  Mr.  Moss, 
who  lives  far  away  from  Kirtland,  and  that 
did  him  no  good.  I  have  lived  in  Kirtland 
for  nearly  a  year,  and  I  have  yet  to  meet 
the  first  old  citizen  who  knows  anything 
against  the  honesty  of  Rigdon,  Harris, 
Joseph  Smith,  Oliver  Cowdery  or  David 
Whitmer,  and  I  have  made  it  a  point  to 
talk  with  all  J  have  met  on  this  subject; 
and  only  last  evening  when  he  had  made 
the  statement  that  he  could  prove  so  and 
BO  about  these  men,  an  old  gentlemen  who 
was  never  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
Sain  ts,  came  to  me  and  sard,  "  It  is  a  false- 
hood. He  can't  do  it.  I  have  lived  here 
for  fifty  years,  and  was  acquainted  with 
those  men,  and  he  slanders  them."  There 


are  men  here  who  have  heard  these  stories 
and  who  can  repeat  them,  but  what 
evidence  is  this  ?  I  have  heard  stories  too, 
ever  since  I  was  ten  years  old,  about  Joseph 
Smith  and  others,  and  usually  they  have 
been  proven  to  be  false.  If  Braden  is  telling 
the  truth  about  what  ho  can  prove  here 
about  these  men,  why  does  he  have  to  call 
his  audience, — who  do  not  agree  with  u>e 
in  religion,  "  Danites  and  clachers."  because 
they  repudiate  these  false  aad  s'axiaerous 
assertions  ? 

We  have  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  here  in 
Kirtland,  and  if  you  want  to    iriake   your 
contest  on  that  kind  of  evidence,  we  will 
set  an  hour  for  the  bringing  of  testimony 
to-morrow,  and  bring  our  witnesses   and 
have  them  sworn.      I  am  ready  to  present 
witnesses  with  you  on  these  p'oints.      Buf~ 
the  Kirtland  bank,  that  was  a  failure,  hej 
says.     Was  it  the  only  one  in  Ohio  at  thatj 
time  that  failed?    No,  there  were  dozens.! 
It  was  in  the  time  of  the  "  wild  cat''  bank-J 
ing  system  in  Ohio  and  other  states,    and! 
the  hard  times  which  came  on  in  1636  and 
1837-8,  property  sunk  in  values,  and    th< 
banks  \venc  under   everywhere.      In    th< 
State  of  Illinois,  where  my  father  lived, 
man  could  not  get  cash  for    labor   at   an; 
price,  and  formerly  well  to  do  men    could! 
not  meet  their  taxes  even.      In  this  time) 
the  Kirtland  bank  went  with  the  others, 
except,  it  did  not  swindle  the  poor.  Besides 
the  hard  times  being  against  the  Kirtland 
bank,  there  was  also  an    organized   oppo- 
sition to  it  by  those  opposed  to  the  religion 
of  the  Saints,  which  tended  to  much  more 
cripple  it.      The  Saints  when  they   came 
here  paid  good  prices  for   whatever    they 
bought;  mortgaged  their  farms  and  lands 
thus  bought  to  secure  the  balance  of   the 
purchase  price  on  them  in  many  instances, 
and  the  hard  times  coming  on,  they  were 
forced  to   sacrifice    their   places   and  pay 
their  debts;  this  they  did,  and  he  thinks  ib 
was  awful  wicked.      Does  the  subsequent 
history  of  these    people    show    that    they 
could  not  succeed  in  business  as    well   as 
other  people?      Notwithstanding  the   fact 
that  their  properties  were  taken  from  them 
by  mobs,  and  they  were  driven  from  their 
homes,  the  history  shows  they  were  equal 
to  all  the  emergencies,  and  in  knowledge, 
wealth,  honesty,  integrity  of  heart,  and  tho 
true  worship  of  God,  they  were  the  peers 
of  any  other  people. 

Smith  and  Rigdon  left  Kirtland  in  1837, 
because  continually  harrassed  by  mobs  and 
conspirators,  who  were  using  every  means 
possible  to  injure  them  in  person  and  prop- 
erty. These  conspirators  even  went  so  far 
as  to  persuade  other  men  into  their  work 
who  were  honest  in  their  intentions,  but 
who  did -not  realize  the  object  and  base 
purposes  of  the  conspirators  until  after- 
wards. Crimes  were  permitted  and  charged 
to  the  Sainta  when  they  were  perpetrated 
by  their  enemies  ;  and  years  after,  righ  t  here 
in  Kirtland,  one  of  these  enemies  upon  a  pro- 
fession of  religion  in  a  protracted  meeting, 
confessed  to  being  the  person  who  stole  a 
plow  in  the  interest  of  their  gang  arid 


368 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


which  was  laid  to  one  of  the  Saints,  and 
they  even  perjured  themselves  to  convict 
an  innocent  man,  and  made  him  suffer  the 
penalty  because  of  his  religion.  A  tool 
chest  was  stolen"  from  one  Hinds  and  laid 
to  the  Saints,  but  a  search  warrant  found  it 
in  the  loft  of  the  minister  wiio  was  working' 
up  this  mob.  All  this  evidence  comes  from 
Braden's  side.  The  Saints  had  to  guard 
the  Temple  night  and  day  while  they  were 
erecting  it.  and  Buffered  untold  wrongs  and 
outrages  by  a  people  who  ought  to  have 
been  rheir  friends.  For  this,  they  hold  no 
malice  however,  knowing  that  the  men 
who  did  it,  were  as  a  rule  deceived  and  put 
up  to  the  terrible  work  by  a  few  unprin- 
cipled leaders,  who  were  always  far  out  of 
danger  in  the  back  ground.  It  was  like  it 
was  in  the  time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles. 
The  self-constituted  clergy  and  priests 
urged  the  populace  to  blood  and  vengeance 
and  hence,  Jesus  says:  "Father  forgive 
them  for  they  know  not  what  they  do." 

Braden  charged  this  terrible  work  to  infi- 
dels,  last  night.    How  could  he  so  insult 


your  good  sense  as  to  so  deliberately  mis- 
represent that  tragedy?    It  was   the  chiej 
priests  and  rulers,  who  urged  the  people  on; 
the  only  avowed  disbeliever  in  the  Bibla 
known   to  be    present  was  Pilate  ;  and  ha 
persisted,  "that  he  found  no  fault  in  Jesus," 
and  those  pious  pricsts(t)  cried  out :  "Away 
with   this  man  and  give   us  Marrabbas!" 
But  Pilate  spoke  to  them   urging  again  the 
release  of  Jesus  ;  and  these  pious  hypocrites 
cried  out,  "Crucify  him  !  "     "Crucify  him  !  " 
Our  infidel  friends  have  enough  sins  of  their 
own   to   answer    for,   without   piling  upon 
them  the  terrible  crimes  of  religious  bigots. 
But  my  opponent  ensnares   himself  which- 
ever way  he  turns.     He  is  as  a  man  walking 
in    darkness,    although     supposed     to    be 
learned  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world 
and  not  after  Christ.    He   has  no  word  of 
God  to  be  a  lamp  to  his  feet  and  guide  to  his 
pathway,  because  he  denies  the  office  work 
of  the  oil,   the  unction, — the  Holy  Spirit — 
that  throws  lisrht  upon  this  word  and  gives 
the  proper  understanding. 
Time  called. 


MR.  BRADEN'S   SEVENTH  SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMEN:— In  the  discussion  of  this 
question  I  have  investigated,  as  duty  de- 
manded, thecharacter  of  Mormonism,  and  of 
its  originators  and  authors.  I  read  the  testi- 
mony of  persons  of  the  highest  character. 
Unable  to  meet  it,  there  was  introduced 
last  night  the  lying  abuse  of  an  infidel 
blackguard.  It  was  read  by  a  similar  char- 
acter. His  Danite  band  of  similar  charac- 
ters greeted  it  with  their  accustomed  Dan- 
Ite  yells.  It  is  what  infidelity  deals  in. 
The  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  de- 
clares that  the  Saints  will  be  equal  with 
Christ.  It  is  blasphemy.  Joe  took  from 
the  Book  of  Mormon  his  fool  prophecy  in 
regard  to  himself,  and  with  transcendent 
blasphemy,  put  it  in  the  Bible  as  the  words 
of  the  Almighty.  I  did  not  quote  the  pas- 
sage about  "inheritance  by  blood/'  nor  refer 
to  it  in  quoting  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and 
Covenants.  I  referred  to  two  passages 
preaching  a  crusade  against  the  Missouri- 
ans.  He  says  Moses  and  Elias  are  angels. 
Where  does  the  Bible  say  so?  Angels 
assumed  the  form  of  men  and  were  called 
men.  The  angel  in  Revelations  did  not 
•ay  "I  am  one  of  the  prophets,"  but  "a 
fellow  servant  of  the  prophets."  Mrs.  Chase 
had  a  peep-stone.  That  is  one  of  Granny 
(smith's  lies,  and  she  says  it  was  Chase's 
daughter,  not  his  wife.  As  he  was  a  minis-. 


ter,  neither  is  true.  Gabriel  and  Elijah 
are  the  same.  Chapter  and  verse  for  it,  il 
you  please. 

"Baptize  for  the  dead"  is  quoted.  Baptisoi 
is  in  the  likeness  of  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  a  type  of  it.  In  imita- 
tion of  it.  Paul  says,  "that  the  dead  rise 
your  baptism  shows."  It  is  in  imitation  of 
the  dead,  or  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
Its  resurrection  from  the  water  proves  that 
the  dead  are  resurrected.  It  is  "baptize  in 
in  imitation  of  the  dead, "or  death  of  Christ. 
The  language  in  Matthew  speaks  of  three 
things  in  each  case.  Salvation  of  good  trees, 
salvation  of  the  wheat,  and  baptism  in  the 
Spirit.  All  these  are  for  the  good.  Evil 
trees,  burning  chaff  and  baptism  in  fire. 
All  for  the  evil.  "You"  includes  both, 
classes,  just  as  when  it  is  said  God  will  re- 
ward every  man  according  to  his  works. 
If  Joe  Smith  knew  enough  to  translate,  he 
could  do  so.  As  he  was  an  ignoramus,  the 
talk  about  his  translating  and  correcting 
revelation  is  blasphemous  nonsense.  Emma 
Smith,  as  her  language  is  reported  by  Joe 
III  in  "Life  of  Joseph  the  Seer,"  does  de- 
clare she  saw  the  plates  and  handled  them, 
covered  with  a  cloth.  None  but  {.he  three 
were  to  see  the  plates  in  the  way  they  did. 
It  does  not  say  so,  and  is  a  paltry  dodge. 
Jacob  and  others  saw  God's  representatives. 
Hosea  says  Jacob  wrestled  with  an  angel. 


THE    P.RADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


367 


Isaiah  says  it  was  an  angel  that  led  Israel 
in  the  wilderness.  "No man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time." 

He  cannot  find  in  the  Bible  such  a  trickey, 
selfish,  jealous  talk  as  we  cited  from  the 
Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants.  My 
opponent  shows  his  ignorance  in  assuming 
that  "cut  off"  means  death.  In  one  case  a 
person  was  cut  off  for  seven  days.  It 
means  separate  from  the  congregation, 
excommunication,  and  some  times  put  to 
death.  He  shows  his  infidel  ignorance  in 
saying  there  was  one  small  window  in  the 
ark.  .Gesenius  says  the  word  used  means  a 
system  of  windows.  Gilbert  said  there 
were  no  capital  letters  at  beginning  of  sen- 
tences. He  said  nothing  about  capitals  in 
any  other  place.  We  know  all  about  God 
that  he  can  know — what  God  has  revealed. 
We  know  more,  for  we  do  not  bury  it  and 
obscure  it  under  Joe  Smith's  materialism 
and  lying  revelations.  He  finds  persons 
who  were  priests  and  officiated  as  priests 
outside  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  and 
assumes  that  they  were  Melchezedek  priests 
because  they  were  not  Aaronic  priests. 
That  is  like  assuming  that  a  man  must  be 
an  Irishman  because  he  is  not  an  Ameri- 
can. He  might  be  a  Dutchman.  Let  him 
prove  they  were  MelchezedeK  priests.  There 
was  Melchezedek  and  there  was  another — 
Christ.  Only  Melchezedek  and  another — 
Christ. 

We  have  already  exposed  the  violence  and 
intolerance  exhibited  by  Mormonism.  It 
began  in  abuse  of  all  who  would  not  accept 
the  fraud,  and  has  since  been  carried  on  by 
violence,  denunciation  and  villification  of 
all  who  opposed  t.  It  began  with  abuse  of  all 
who  opposed  it  in  New  York.  This  was 
carried  to  violence  and  plotting  assassina- 
tion in  Kirtland.  It  culminated  in  the 
Danite  band,  and  assassination  in  Missouri, 
and  Nauvoo.  Smith  was  notoriously  quar- 
relsome when  intoxicated.  Morman  pil- 
grims to  New  York  can  have  pointed  out  to 
them,  by  citizens  of  Manchester,  the  tree  to 
which  he  tied  his  father,  when  he  flogged 
him.  He  was  taken  to  Painesville  while  in 
Kirtland  and  tried  for  assault  on  hia 
brother-in-law,  Calvin  Stoddard.  He  told 
a  dupe  of  his  by  the  name  of  M.  C.  Davis, 
that  it  was  the  will  of  the  Lord  that  Gran- 
dison  Newell  should  be  removed.  His  Dan- 
ite with  a  young  man  who  lived  in  Smith's 
family,  went  to  obey  the  revelation.  The 
Danite  tool  took  aim  at  Newell  in  the  bos- 
om of  his  family,  when  his  better  nature 
revolted  at  the  horrid  crime,  this  murder- 
ous villainous,  impostor  bad  sent  him  to  do, 
and  Newell  was  spared.  On  another  occa- 
sion lie  sent  three  Thugs  under  the  leader- 
ship of  one  Bump,  to  waylay  Newell,  and 
murder  him  as  he  returned  from  Paines- 
ville. They  lay  in  wait  with  loaded  guns 
fur  hours.  Providentially,  Newell  took  an- 
other road,  and  escaped  Joe's  fiendish  hate 
again. 

The  spirit  that  actuated  him  in  Kirt- 
land can  be  seen  in  another  fact.  Mr. 
William  Smith  one  morning  visited  a  Mor- 
mon neighbor  by  the  name  of  Cluff.  He 


observed  a  pike  setting  behind  the  door.  On 
inquiry  he  found  that  Mormons  had  been 
provided  with  these  murderous  weapons, 
to  use  on  the  Gentiles,  and  thatone  or  more 
were  in  nearly  every  Mormon  family  in 
Kirtland,  and  over  200  in  all.  AVhen  Mr. 
Cluff  left  he  gave  the  pike  to  Mr.  Smith. 
Here  it  is.  It  is  the  pike  used  by  the  Irish 
Catholic  rebels  in  the  Protestant  massacre 
of  the  last  century. 

We  have  cited  the  schemes  of  swindling 
fraud  and  ruin  that  characterized  Moi  mon- 
ism in  Kirtland.  It  closed  in  bankrupny, 
ruin  and  Incendiarism.  It  left  Kirtland  a 
ruin  strewed  with  wrecks.  Land  has  not 
been  worth  as  much  per  acre  in  Kirtland 
since  the  Mormon  influx  into  Kirtland,  aa 
similar  lands  in  neighboring  towns.  Mor- 
monism left  a  stigma  on  Kirtland.  Even 
now,  citizens  of  Lake  county,  and  towng 
about  Kirtland,  would  look  on  a  return  of 
Mormons  to  Kirtland  as  an  incalculable 
calamity.  Mormonism  became  a  stench  VL 
the  nostrils  of  all  decent  people  in  north- 
eastern Ohio,  and  its  foul  odor  has  not  left: 
its  old  haunts  yet.  Like  the  stench  of  the 
spotted  animal  in  the  fields,  every  shower 
of  excitement  on  Mormonism  causes  it  to 
manifest  its  noisome  odor. 

While  acting  in  his  primitive,  super- 
natural capacity  as  watei-witch  and  money- 
digger,  Smith  made  the  acquaintance  of  a 
drunken  vagabond  by  the  name  of  Walters, 
who  had  been  a  physician  in  Europe.  This 
person  had  learned  in  Europe  the  secret  cf 
Mesmerism  or  animal  magnetism.  This 
was  entirely  unknown  in  America  except 
to  a  few  in  large  cities,  who  had  read 
European  papers.  Smith  learned  this  art, 
and  like  all  men  with  great  passions,  vital- 
ity and  physical  force  he  was  almost  a 
prodigy  in  his  mesmeric  power.  All  casting 
out  devils  and  raising  the  dead  were  merely 
a  display  of  his  great  mesmeric  power.  He 
would  select  those  he  could  throw  into  a 
profound  mesmeric  trance.  Persons  ignor- 
ant of  the  secret  thought  they  were  dead. 
He  would  by  passes  bring  them  out  of  the 
trance,  and  the  ignorant  supposed  it  was 
a  miracle,  a  resurrection.  His  supposed 
cases  of  healing  were  merely  displays  of 
this  power,  and  are  common  now,  and  no 
wonder.  When  the  Mormons  began  in 
Kirtland,  they  pretended  to  heal  all  sick 
by  laying  on  of  hands.  Some  claimed 
there  was  no  use  in  persons  bein<r  sick, 
that  they  should  never  see  death.  As  two 
of  their  leaders,  F.  G.  Williams,  who  was 
second  vice-president,  and  one  other,  were 
root-doctors;  revelation  allowed  them  to 
use  herbs.  It  was  observed,  however,  that 
when  the  present  prophet  was  born,  Jo* 
had  the  best  medical  aid  from  the  world  he 
could  get. 

A  young  man  named  Dota,  about  twenty 
years  old,  was  very  active  and  zealou* 
among  them,  and  divinely  commissioned 
to  preach.  So  firmly  did  ha  believe 
in  Smith  and  Mormonism,  and  their 
miraculous  power,  that  he  told  one  of 
his  family  not?  five  weeks  before  his  death, 
that  he  would  live  a  thousand  years.  Tea 


368 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


days  before  he  died  he  was  attacked  with 
inflammation  of  the  bowels.  No  persuasion 
of  his  parents,  who  were  not  Mormons, 
could  pursuade  him  to  allow  a  physician  to 
be  called.  The  elders  called  on  him,  en- 
couraging him  in  his  delusion,  and  telling 
him  he  was  getting  better.  Smith  visited 
him  and  protested  against  his  having  a 
physician,  and  went  through  his  mummer- 
ies "over  him,  and  told  him  he  would  get 
well.  When  his  parents  brought  a 
physician  a  few  hours  before  his  death,  the 
physician  told  him  his  delusion  had  cost 
him  his  life.  He  would  live  but  a  few  hours. 
Reason  returned  to  the  poor  victim  of  Mor- 
mon madness  and  the  scoundrelly  hypocrisy 
of  Smith,  and  the  leaders.  He  exclaimed, 
"  What  a  mistake  I  have  made!  "  He  said 
to  a  Mormon  standing  by,  "This  is  a  lesson. 
I  have  learned  by  experience;  you  can 
profit  by  it.  With  me  it  is  "  too  late,"  and 
died,  a  victim  to  Mormon  folly  and  fraud. 
An  attempt  was  made  to  raise  a  child. 
It  was  generally  believed  that  they  drugged 
the  child,  intending  it  to  recover  from  the 
drug,  and  gave  it  a  dose  that  killed  it.  Old 
citizens  can  narrate  scores  of  cases  of  delu- 
sion and  fraud  in  pretended  miracles. 
Smith  and  Rigdon  once  tried  to  heal  Mr. 
Wakefield  of  Willoughby,  before  a  crowded 
house  in  the  temple,  and  announced  that 
he  had  been  healed  of  lameness ;  but  he 
was  as  much  a  cripple  in  five  minutes  as  he 
ever  had  been,  and  died  one.  Smith  tried  to 
heal  a  decrepit  hand  of  Elder  Murdoch,  and 
failed.  The  failures  compelled  him  to  give  up 
that  fraud.  Smith  announced  at  a  conference 
that  some  would  see  the  Savior.  He  laid 
hands  on  Elder  Wight,  mesmerizing  him, 
and  Wight  arose  with  a  pale  countenance, 
fierce  looks,  and  arms  extended,  shaking 
form,  leapt  on  a  bench,  and  shrieked  that 
he  saw  Jesus.  He  laid  hands  on  another, 
who  shuffled  over  the  floor,  his  legs  bent, 
one  shoulder  elevated  with  his  head  resting 
on  it,  his  arms  extended,  hands  clenched, 
mouth  pinched  up  like  an  "o,"  and  his 
countenance  wild  and  ferocious.  Smith 
shouted,  "Speak  Bro.  Harvy,"  but  he  could 
not.  Smith  first  said  that  it  was  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord,  but  when  persons  cried  out 
that  he  was  possessed  of  the  devil,  he 
changed  his  mind  and  said  it  was  the  devil ; 
and  cast  him  out  by  removing  the  mes- 
meric spell.  Scores  of  such  scenes  can  be 
narrated  by  the  old  citizens  of  Kirtland. 
Ridiculous  attempts  to  confer  spiritual 
gifts,  scenes  of  folly,  frenzy  and  madness. 
Imposture  on  the  part  of  leaders,  madness, 
folly,  and  insanity  on  the  part  of  the  dupes. 
Iligdon's  conversion  was  effected  by  this 
Bublime  vision.  After  much  prayer  he  was 
wrapped  in  a  vision,  and  to  use  his  own 
words:  "To  my  astonishment  I  saw  the 
different  orders  of  professing  Christians 
passing  before  me  with  their  hearts  exposed 
to  view,  and  they  were  as  corrupt  as  cor- 
ruption itself.  'The  society  to  which  I 
belonged  passed  before  me,  and  to  my 
astonishment  it  was  as  corrupt  as  the  rest. 
Last  of  all  the  little  man  (Cowdery).  who 
brought  me  the  Book  of  Mormon,  passed 


before  my  eyes,  with  his  heart  open,  and  it 
was  as  pure  as  an  angel."  This  was  a  tes- 
timony from  God  that  the  Book  of  Mormon 
was  a  divine  revelation.  This  was  Rigdon's 
lie,  on  which  he  based  his  pretend«d  con- 
version to  Mormonism.  He  went  to  New 
York  to  see  Smith,  and  arrange  for  the 
carrying  out  of  the  scheme  that  he  had 
been  concocting  for  years.  Cowdery  and 
Harris  and  Whitmer  stayed  and  held  rue,  t- 
ings.  Scenes  of  the  most  wild,  frantic  and 
disgusting  fanaticism  ensued.  They  pre- 
tended that  the  power  to  work  miracles, 
was  about  to  be  given  to  all  who  embraced 
the  new  faith,  and  commenced  communi- 
cating the  spirit  by  laying  their  hands  on 
the  heads  of  the  converts,  which  produced 
an  instantaneous  prostration  of  body  and 
mind.  Many  fell  on  the  floor,  and  would 
lie  for  a  long  time  apparently  lifeless. 
Women  would  fall  on  the  floor,  especially 
young  women,  and  utterly  rega/nlees  of 
exposure  of  person.  The  sexes  hiy  around 
promiscuously,  and  were  laid  to  one  side 
promiscuously.  The  fit  cajne  on  duri  ig 
prayer  meetings,  which  were  held  nearly 
every  evening  for  weeks,  xoung  men  and 
women  were  pt-<  iliarly  subject  to  this 
delirium.  They  would  exhibit  all  apish 
actions  imaginable,  making  the  most  ridi- 
culous grimaces,  creeping  on  their  hands 
and  feet  on  the  frozen  ground.  A  spectator 
now  present,  declares  he  never  saw  any- 
thing like  it,  except  in  the  insane  ward  of 
a  poorhouse.  Preaching  to  the  Indians, 
the  Lamanites,  converting  the  Lamanites 
was  the  hobby  of  Mormonism  at  first. 
Their  converts  would  go  through  with  all 
modes  of  Indian  warfare,  knocking  down, 
scalping,  ripping  open,  tearing  out  the 
bowels,  etc.  At  other  times  they  would 
run  through  the  fields,  get  on  stumps,  and 
preach  to  imaginary  audiences,  rush  into 
the  water  |and  go  through  the  pantomine 
of  immersion,  etc.  Many  would  have  fits 
of  speaking  in  all  Indian  dialects.  Again, 
they  would  in  the  dead  hour  of  night,  >-un 
over  the  hills  and  fields  in  pursuit  of  balls 
of  fire,  light,  etc.— The  Holy  Spirit  they 
declared.  Others  would  put  the  devil  to 
flight  and  chase  him.  One  of  the  audience 
saw  three  men,  one  a  negro  called  black 
Pete,  each  mounted  on  a  stump  on  the  hill, 
north  east  of  the  post  office,  all  (.reaching. 
A  waggish  young  man  made  a  singular 
noise,  all  jumped  from  their  pulpit,  and 
dashed  down  the  hill.  Black  Pete  shout- 
ing: "Here  we  go,"  and  when  he 
slipped  up,  "O  God,  here  we  go."  Cowdery 
departed  to  convert  the  Lamanites,  with 
his  Book  of  Mormon  and  miracles.  The 
young  men  in  Kirtland  all  had  a  mania  for 
preaching  to  th*  nations.  They  would 
jump  into  the  air  as  high  as  they  could, 
and  pretend  their  commissions  to  preach 
were  handed  down  to  them  out  of  heaven. 
These  commissions  were  on  parchment, 
signed  and  sealed  by  Christ  himself. 
With  such  papers  in  their  pockets,  they 
ran  over  the  country,  ranting,  and  calling 
it  preaching.  At  one  time,  they  pretended 
that  an  angel  walked  out  on  the  water,  and 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


869 


held  a  light  for  th^ra  to  baptize.  The  boys 
examined  the  water,  and  found  a  plank 
just  below  the  surface.  They  moved  it, 
and  the  next  night  the  angel  got  a  ducking, 
and  the  boys  chased  him  through  the 
stumps  in  the  neighboring  field.  Mr.  Moss, 
the  teacher,  was  called  one  day  from  his 
school  to  see  a  young  man  in  the  upper 
story  of  his  father's  shoe  shop.  He  was 
scaring*  away  the  devil,  by  pointing  his 
finger  at  him,  and  shouting  "Zit."  Mr. 
Moss  tossed  a  shoe  near  him,  and  he  dashed 
headlong  down  stairs,  and  chased  the 
devil  through  a  neighboring  field.  We 
could  continue  these  disgusting  statements 
for  pages,  and  we  have  living  witnesses 
here  to  sustain  our  statements.  What  won- 
der that  Mormonism  after  making  Kirtland 
a  bedlam  of  fanaticism,  left  covered  with 
infidel  wrecks — persons  who  scouted  all 
religion,  because  Mormonism  was  a  hum- 
bug. 

Living  witnesses  for  this  scene  can  be 
produced.  We  quote  from  Dewitt  Miller  of 
Willoughby.  In  a  log  school  in  the  town 
of  Willoughby,  near  Kirtland,  Smith,  after 
a  sermon  explanatory  of  the  nature  of  the 
possession  \>y  devils — the  divine  nature  of 
the  power  he  should  use  in  casting  them 
out,  and  the  process  of  casting  out  devils, 
proceeded  to  attempt  to  cast  devils  out  of  a 
man  named  Ichabod  Grand  all,  who  lay  on 
his  belly  on  the  floor,  groaning  fearfully, 
surrounded  by  a  circle  of  Mormons  on  their 
knees.  Smith  said  he  would  give  three 
orders.  First  mild,  second  authorative,  and 
the  third,  such  an  order  as  would  fetch  the 
devils  sure  pop.  Smith  in  a  loud  gruff  voice 
issued  his  order.  At  the  third  order  the 
devil  came  out,  not  out  of  Crandall,  but  out 
of  a  bag  held  by  a  man  in  the  corner,  near 
the  old  stove,  in  the  shape  of  a  big  black 
cat.  The  cat  tore  around  the  house  sqnall- 
irig,  the  dogs  took  after  it  barking,  the  boys 
yelling.  The  cat  was  chased  up  a  tree.  The 
tree  was  cut  down,  the  cat  killed,  and 
Smith's  devil  was  disposed  of.  The  ridic- 
ulous frauds  practiced  in  attempting  to 
work  miracles  in  and  around  Kirtland  are 
notorious.  No  wonder  my  opponent  was 
so  shy  of  Kirtland  miracles.  He  feared 
that  the  attempt  to  walk  on  the  water,  and 
the  failure  caused  by  the  planks  being 
moved,  would  be  brought  out.  What  won- 
der that  Mormonism  left  Kirtland  a  wreck 
religiously,  and  that  the  very  name  of  Mor- 
monism is  a  stench  in  North-Eastern  Ohio, 
and  that  Mormonism  made  Kirtland  a 
stench  in  the  nostrils  of  all  decency,  and 
sense.  The  cases  of  preaching  from  stumps, 
chasing  the  devil,  of  the  child,  of  Dota,  of 
Mr.  Wakefield,  of  Murdoch,  and  scores  of 
other  frauds  and  failures  are  too  notorious 
to  be  denied. 

One  of  the  idiotic  torn  fooleries  of  Kirtland 
was  speaking  in  different  tongues.  This 
idiotic  farce  is  still  kept  up  by  the  Re-organ- 
ized. It  was  practiced  in  the  convention 
last  Spring.  Mr.  Higbee,  once  a  Mormon 
Elder,  tells  how  David  Patton,  a  Mormon 
emissary,  commanded  him  to  arise  and 
•peak  in  tongues.  He  faltered.  "Speak  as 


you  list,"  ordered  Patton.  He  then  gab- 
bled words  that  Patton  called  a  tongue. 
Others  gabbled  in  the  same  manner.  Rey- 
nolds Gaboon  gave  them  this  rule:  "Make 
some  sound,  continue  to  make  sounds,  the 
Lord  will  make  a  language  of  it."  Persons 
would  frequently  sing  in  this  gibberish  in 
a  drawl  or  whine,  they  called  a  tune.  They 
said  these  songs  would  be  sung  when  the 
lost  tribes  appeared  in  Missouri.  One  of 
the  women  who  spoke  in  the  convention  in 
Kirtland  last  Spring,  drawled  out,  "Ah- 
Pish-Kft-Ta,"  "Ah-Pish-Ke-Ta,"  those  four 
syllables  over  and  over.  That  is  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Another  eye  witness 
tells  of  this  scene.  A  number  of  Elders  and 
Priests  assembled  in  a  room  in  Kirtland. 
Smith  exhorted  them  to  exercise  faith,  and 
some  would  see  the  Lord  in  person.  He 
declared  the  time  was  coming  when  no  one 
would  be  allowed  to  preach  unless  they 
had  seen  the  Lord.  About  as  sensible  as 
my  opponent's  claim  that  all  Mormon 
preachers  are  called  as  Aaron  was  called, 
and  that  they  have  miraculous  power. 
Soon  he  said  to  Rigdon,  "Sydney,  you  have 
seen  the  Lord."  Sydney  mounted  Ahas- 
uerus's  horse  and  shouted,  "I  saw  the 
image  of  a  man  pass  before  my  face,  whose 
locks  were  white  and  whose  countenance 
was  exceeding  fair,  even  surpassing  all 
beauty  I  ever  beheld."  Hiram  Smith  de- 
clared that  he  had  seen  what  Sydney  had 
seen.  R.  Copeland  declared  that  he  had 
seen  the  temple  of  Zion  filled  with  Saints, 
the  top  covered  with  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
in  the  form  of  a  cloud.  Smith  went  around 
the  room  laying  his  hands  on  the  head  of 
each  one,  gabbling,  "Ah  man.  Oh  Son. 
Ah  man.  Ah  ne.  commune,  en  halle  goste, 
en  ha  ben,  en  glai,  hosanna,  en  holle  goste, 
en  esac,  melkin,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Nephi, 
Lehi,  St.  John."  After  the  supper  several 
gabbled  in  tongues,  and  one  sung  a  gibber- 
ish to  the  tune  of  Bruce's  address.  Who 
doubts  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to 
gabble  such  stuff,  and  that  Mormon  idiocy 
is  the  "Fullness  of  the  Gospel."  A  mis- 
chievous youth,  now  a  man  of  advanced 
years,  William,  present  in  the  audience, 
used  to  speak  in  tongues  in  Mormon 
meetings,  as  a  practical  joke  on  the  breth- 
ren. It  was  announced  that  he  excelled 
all  others.  The  most  wonderful  display 
of  tongues  in  the  Mormon  dispensation 
was  the  gibberish  of  this  young  man.  Rig- 
don declared  that  he  spakein  three  tongues, 
and  interpreted  his  waggish  gibberish  in 
strains  of  spread  eagle,  in  which  Ahasuerus' 
horse  cleft  the  clouds  like  Pegasus.  Think 
of  a  waggish  Corinthian  youth  uttering 
gibberish  as  a  practical  joke,  and  the  in- 
spired Paul  announcing  that  he  spake  in 
three  tongues,  and  interpreted  in  a  rhap- 
sody of  hi^h-fallutin.  The  Saints  used  to 
have  love  feasts,  in  which  wine  was  passed 
around  in  buckets,  each  one  helping  him- 
self to  all  he  wanted,  with  gourd  or  dipper. 
The  old  blesser,  old  Joe  Smith,  often  got  so 
blessed  drunk  that  he  could  not  get  out  of 
his  chair.  In  an  endowment  meeting  held 
in  the  temple  in  1836,  wine  was  drank  so 


870 


TILE  BE  ADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


freely  that  several  of  the  church  official** 
got  beastly  drunk.  S.  H.  Smith,  brother  of 
the  prophet,  staggered  into  the  pulpit  and 
gave  a  revelation,  Mormons  claimed  it  was 
a  wonderful  miracle  that  a  man  so  drunk 
could  utter  such  a  revelation  ! !  Smith  soon 
got  sick  and  spewed  into  a  spittoon,  and  \V. 
E.  McLellan  emptied  it  several  times  out  of 
the  window.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that 
one  of  the  brethren,  lying  flat  on  his  back 
BO  full  of  the  spirit  (of  drunkenness)  that  he 
could  not  sit  up,  hiccoughed  out:  "Now  is 
the  time  to  see  visions."  Yea,  verily  it  was. 
He  spake  as  spirits  gave  him  utterance,  but 
not  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  declares  that 
no  drunkard  shall  inherit  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  But  for  the  sake  of  our  common  hu- 
manity we  forbear.  Such  was  the  character 
of  Mormonism  under  Joe  Smith  in  Kirtland. 
What  wonder  that  decent  people  dread  a 
renewal  of  it  as  they  would  a  pestilence  of 
pollution.  What  wonder  that  Kirtland  has 
been  a  wreck  religiously.  That  it  is  full  of 
men  and  women  who  are  at  sea,  believing 
nothing,  doubting  all  things.  It  is  said 
scratch  a  Russian  and  you  will  find  a  Tartar 
under  his  hide.  In  like  manner  scratch  an 
infidel  in  Kirtland,  and  you  will  find  a 
soured  Mormon  under  his  hide,  or  the 
soured  son  of  a  Mormon.  Judging  from  the 
defense  of  Mormonism  made  in  this  debate, 
and  the  applause  of  infitlels  given  to  the  in- 
fidel attacks  made  on  the  Bible,  Infidelity 
and  Mormonism  are  the  same. 

We  propose  now  to  cap  the  climax  of  Mor- 
mon lying  which  reaches  the  sublime  in  its 
colossal  magnitude,  with  an  extract  of  Joe 
Smith's  autobiography,  telling  what  hap- 
pened in  Kirtland  at  the  dedication  of  the 
Temple.  "Brother  G.  A.  Smith  arose  and 
began  to  prophesy,  when  a  noise  was  heard 
like  a  mighty  rushing  wind,  which  filled 
the  temple  and  all  the  congregation  arose 
simultaneously,  being  moved  upon  by  an 
irresistible  power.  Many  began  to  speak  in 
tongues  and  to  prophecy.  Others  saw  glori- 
ous visions,  (as  they  had  two  barrel*  of  whis- 
key with  the  heads  knocked  out,  perhaps 
some  were  in  the  condition  of  theSaint  who 
said,  "Now  is  the  time  to  see  visions.")  And 
J  beheld  the  Temple  was  filled  with  angels 
which  face  I  declared  unto  the  congrega- 
tion. The  people  of  the  neighborhood  hear- 
ing an  unusual  sound,  and  seeing  a  bright 
light,  like  a  pillar  of  fire,  resting  on  the 
Temple,  were  astonished  at  what  was  trans- 
piring and  came  running  together."  There 
is  not  a  person  who  was  at  Kirtland  that 
day,  or  who  was  at  the  dedication,  that 
does  not  know  that  that  statement  is  a 
tissue  of  lies,  made  up  out  of  whole  cloth. 
Yet  we  are  asked  to  accept  the  colossal 
liar  that  published  to  the  world  that  mons- 
trous lie  concerning  the  dedication  of  the 
Temple,  as  a  prophet,  and  his  lies  as  revela- 
tions. The  organization  that  was  gotten  up 
by  such  a  liar,  and  that  publishes  such  lies, 
that  is  based  on  and  made  up  in  all  that  is 
peculiar  to  itself  of  such  lies,  is  the  true 
church  of  (i!od  and  accepted  of  him. 

My  opponent  argues  in  his  last  speech 
that  Moses  was  like  Christ  and  as  Christ 


was  a  Melchezedek  priest,  Moses  was  one. 
Unfortunately,  the  Bible  says  Moses  was 
like  Christ  as  a  prophet.  "A  prophet  like 
unto  me."  Not  as  a  priest.  It  does  not 
say,  A  priest  like  unto  me.  He  wants  to 
know  to  what  priesthood  my  people  belong. 
We  are  Christian  kings,  not  Melchezedek 
kings  or  Aaronic  kings  ;  Christian  priests, 
not  Melchezedek  or  Aaronic  priests,  royal 
priests  unto  God.  He  asserts  thajt  Christ 
was  a  priest  on  earth.  The  Scriptures 
declare,  "If  he  (Christ)  were  on  earth  he 
would  not  be  a  priest."  Christ  was  not  a 
priest  on  earth.  He  began  his  priestly 
office  when  he  entered  the  holy  of  holies, 
heaven.  I  shall  spend  no  time  over  eccle- 
siastical history.  I  can  establish  every 
papal  mummery  by  it,  as  he  does  his  mum- 
meries. He  undertakes  to  off-set  my  expo- 
sure of  Joe  Smith  by  citing  an  instance 
where  a  Disciple  preacher  stole.  Wicked 
men  may  steal  the  livery  of  heaven  to  serve 
the  devil  in.  We  see  that  done  frequently. 
We  can  believe  that.  But  when  you  ask 
us  to  believe  that  God,  who  cannot  look  on. 
sin  with  the  least  allowance,  deliberately 
chose  a  water  witching,  peeping,  money 
hunting,  lying,  drinking,  stealing,  swear- 
ing scoundrel,  and  by  miracle  clothed  him 
with  the  livery  of  inspiration,  to  give  a 
revelation  and  dispensation  of  religion  to 
the  world,  that  stood  related  to  the  dispen- 
sation of  his  own  Son  as  the  fullness  of  the 
gospel,  you  insult  decency  and  reason. 

My  opponent  takes  up  the  testimony  of 
the  men  and  women  of  Palmyra  and  Man- 
chester, and  criticizes  it  He  impudenty 
plays  witness  and  pettifogger.  He  manu- 
factures evidence  to  suit  his  wants.  He 
tells  us  that  he  talked  with  persons  in 
Manchester  and  Palmyra.  We  read  on  the 
first  proposition  the  affidavits  of  Danford 
Booth,  Orrin  Reed,  Amanda  Reed  and  J.  H. 
Gilbert,  that  the  statements  he  read  were 
deliberate  falsehoods.  There  were  pre- 
tended answers  to  questions  never  asked. 
In  other  cases  the  pretended  answer  was 
exactly  the  reverse  of  what  they  said.  We 
have  impeached  Kelley  the  witness  with  his 
fabricated  testimony.  It  is  merely  the  man- 
ufactured yarns  of  Kelley  the  pettifogger 
that  he  impudently  wants  to  foist  in  as 
evidence.  Samantha  Payne  testifies  she 
was  in  the  cave.  Had  he  driven  over  to 
Mr.  Miner's,  Mr.  Miner  could  have  led  him 
to  the  cave.  His  yarn  about  Mrs.  Chase 
having  a  peep-stone  is  a  fabrication  of  old 
Granny  Smith.  His  attacks  on  the  affida- 
vits are  ridiculous.  Peter  Ingersoll  would 
let  Joe  have  money  and  move  him  if  he 
would  give  his  father-in-law  as  security. 
That  is  incredible,  for  Joe's  father-in-law- 
was  over  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles 
away.  True,  and  they  were  going  right  to 
his  house.  Ingersoll  tells  what  Alvin  did. 
Alvin  had  been  dead  two  years  when  he 
testified.  Yes,  but  he  was  living  when  what 
Ingersoll  narrated  happened.  Is  not  my 
opponent  ashamed  of  such  stuff".  Dr.  John 
Stafford  never  told  him  that  his  own  fath- 
er's affidavit  in  r«v>ar«l  to  the  black  weth<>ir 
was  false.  I  will  furnish  Dr.  Stafford 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


371 


affidavit  that  it  is  true.  I  will  furnish  the 
statements  of  Abel  Chase  and  Loren- 
zo Saunders.  I  will  not  manufac- 
ture evidence  and  tell  what  a  dozen 
witnesses  told.  me.  Think  of  the  infinite 
impudence  of'E.  L.  Kelley's  attacking  men 
who  have  been  judges  of  State  Courts,  Con- 
gressmen, leading  business  men,  the  best 
citizens  of  Palmyra  and -Manchester,  men 
whose  shoes  he  is  not  fit  to  clean.  It  is  as 
impudent  as  the  conduct  of  himself  and 
brother.  On  Sunday  morning  two  Danites 
made  a  raid  on  several  oM  people  in  Man- 
chester. They  refused  to  give  their  names, 
tell  who  or  what  they  were,  or  their  busi- 
ness. They  asked  questions,  sneered  at 
the  answers,  laughed  over  them,  disputed 
them,  insulted  the  ones  on  whom  they  had 
forced  their  impudent  presence,  and  bull- 
dozed generally  ;  and  then  went  off  and 
manufactured  a  report,  that  the  persons 
interviewed  declare  under  solemn  oath  to 
be  a  tissue  of  deliberate  falsehoods.  Such 


is  the  character-of  the  course  of  Kelley  the 
witness  and  Kelley  the  pettifogger  for  Mor- 
monism.  It  is  in  keeping  with  his  client's 
character. 

In  regard  to  Jeffery's  evidence,  we  have 
this  to  say.  Mormon  history  shows  that  Rig- 
don  lived  in  Nauvoo  and  not  in  Pittsburg  in 
1843,  until  late  in  the  year.  That  he  did  lead 
in  Mormon  business.  That  in  Sept.  1844, 
he  was  in  Nauvoo,  trying  to  take  Smith's 
place.  That  he  told  the  apostles,  September 
14th,  1844,  that  if  they  did  not  place  him  in 
Smith's  place,  he  would  tell  the  secrets  of 
Mormonism.  They  rejected  him.  In  the 
Mormon  official  organ  appeared  bitter  de- 
nunciations of  Rigdon  for  exposing  Mor- 
monism. It  was  precisely  at  this  time  that 
Jeffery  declares  he  told  him  what  he  nar- 
rates in  his  testimony.  Every  fact  in  Mor- 
mon history  in  regard  to  the  matter  corrob- 
orates Jeffery's  statement.  Kelley's  state-! 
ment  in  his  attempt  to  set  it  to  one  side  are 
flat  contradictious  of  Mormon  publications. 


MR.  KELLEY'S  CLOSING   SPEECHI 


GENTLEMEN  MODERATORS,  LADIES  AND 
GENTLEMKN: — I  appear  before  you  this 
time  to  conclude  my  work  of  the  debate.  I 
have  been  gratified  throughout  the  discus- 
sion with  the  courtesy  manifested  by  you 
during  the  various  sessions  and  the  interest 
taken  in  the  arguments,  and  I  shall  have 
been  amply  repaid  for  the  time  I  have  given 
to  it,  if  the  investigation  leads  you  to  a 
more  thorough  and  fuller  acquaintance  with 
God's  word  and  toa  closer  observance  of  his 
law  and  the  obligations  we  all  owe  to  each 
other. 

After  noticing  one  or  two  statements  just 
made,  I  shall  at  once  proceed  with  my  argu- 
ment and 

SUMMARY. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  article 
which  I  read  last  evening  and  a  personal 
attack  made  against  me,  (it  is  so  unreason- 
able, however,  that  no  injury  can  result 
from  it,  if  intended)  because  I  used  that 
article  as  a  forcible  illustration  that  my 
.positions  have  been  correct  all  of  the  time 
while  his  have  been  false  and  deceptive  ;  I 
had  in  vain  cited  him  to  the  fact  that  his 
course  would,  if  correct,  destroy  the  divine 
claim  of  Moses  and  the  prophets ;  of  not 
only  these,  but  the  religion  of  Jesus  and 
the  apostles.  Had  cited  the  fact  that  the 
Reformers  would  be  necessarily  rejected  by 
such  a  rule  and  that  the  great  Wesley  would 
be  dishonored  by  its  application  ;  that  the 
ministers  of  his  own  denomination  would 
fall  equally  with  others,  but  it  seems  my 


opponent  never  appreciated  the  enormity 
of  his  course  until  I  had  brought  the  matter 
home  to  him.  Now  he  says  I  am  an  infidel 
because  I  read  it.  But  did  he  not  force  the 
reading  because  of  his  blindness  to  tamer 
illustrations? 

With  regard  to  the  evidence  I  read  taken 
at  Palmyra  it  was  not  my  own  publication, 
but  another  party.  So  much  for  his  com- 
ment about  my  being  a  witness  for  myself. 
But  Dr.  Thomas  Stafford  will  not  say  what 
Braden  has  said  he  would,  nor  has  he  ever 
to  my  khowledge  even  hinted  that  he  was 
not  correctly  reported. 

The  ridiculous  tale  he  tells  about  Joseph 
Smith's  speaking  in  tongues,  which  betook 
out  of  Howe's  book  or  from  some  one  else 
who  got  it  there,  is  beneath  the  considera- 
tion of  any  sensible  man.  Joseph  Smith  did 
not  profess  even  to  have  the  gift  of  tongues. 
That  was  not  a  part  of  the  conferred  favors 
upon  him.  He  was  a  prophet.  Can't  you 
see  the  difference,  Mr.  Braden? 

Again,  wherever  the  Saints  have  been, 
he  says,  they  have  left  in  their  track,  barren- 
ness and  desolation.  Yes,  as  with  the 
Master  of  the  house  so  with  the  household. 
The  Jews  cast  Jesus  out  of  Jerusalem,  an.4 
ruin,  desolation  and  death  followed,  and  so 
had  he  predicted.  His  children  were  cast 
out  of  Kirtland  and  like  results  followed,' 
and  it  had  been  also  predicted  that  it  would. 
It  was  also  afterwards  told  them  that  they 
should  find  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  people 
if  they  kept  the  law  of  God,  and  right  here 


372 


THE  BRA DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


In  Kirtland  I  am  now  met  .with  suoh  warm 
friends  (hat  it  has  surprised  my  opponent, 
and  instead  of  carrying  the  people  against 
me,  as  he  expected,  as  of  old,  he  has  turned 
against  this  intelligent  audience  calling 
them  "Kelley 's  clackers,"  etc.  Nauvoo  has 
been  referred  to.  Yes,  the  Saints  were 
driven  from  Nauvoo,  and  desolation  fol- 
lowed for  the  city.  Is  the  lesson  in  our 
favor  or  against  us?  Let  every  candid  man 
and  woman  answer  for  him  or  herself.  But  I 
must  not  refer  to  the  fact  that  Jerusalem  in 
its  desolation  is  a  mark  of  the  habitation 
of  the  favored  of  Cod  under  the  prophets, 
or  my  opponent  will  think  I  am  attacking 
the  Bible. 

Again,  during  the  last  night  on  the  first 
question,  when  he  knew  I  had  not  the  time 
to  reply  to  him,  he  dodged  in  and  foamed 
considerably,  charging  polygamy  upon 
Joseph  Smith,  the  Seer,  in  the  hope  that  he 
might  help  his  weak  efforts  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  could  be  easily  prejudiced. 
And  sure  enough  one  or  two  bit  at  it.  What 
a  pile  of  evidence  he  brought  forward.  In 
vain  I  had  showed  him  that  if  Mr.  Smith 
did  do  something  bad  it  would  not  hurtour 
faith  any  more  than  the  act  of  Peter  when 
"he  cursed  and  swore,"  or  that  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  when  they  fell  out  and  would 
not  even  travel  the  same  road,  injured  the 
pure  principles  of  the  gospel  then.  That 
our  faith  was  not  in  men  but  in  Christ  and 
his  doctrine.  But  no,  he  could  never  see 
the  argument ;  but  takes  the  stand  and  said 
I  compared  Smith  with  Caiaphas  aud.  some 
of  the  old  Hebrew  idolaters.  I  had  never 
used  one  of  the  names  he  mentioned,  how- 
ever ;  I  had  compared  with  Moses  the  type 
of  Christ,  with  Abraham  the  father  of  the 
faithful,  with  David  the  inspired  Psalmist, 
and  Solomon  the  wise  king,  and  many  of 
the  early  Christians.  Then  he  puts  on  a 
solemn  look  again  and  says  I  attack  the 
Bible.  If  I  undertake  to  stand  by  it  and 
compare  our  faith  with  it  in  this  contro- 
versy, I  attack  it  in  his  estimation ;  yet  it 
is  the  agreed  standard  in  this  debate,  and 
have  I  not  the  right  to  compare  witn  the 
standard?  And  when  I  compare  and  say 
that  my  people  by  his  own  stories  are  as 
good  as  those  held  out  by  the  standard  that 
we  accepted,  he  hollows  out,  "foul,"  "it's 
not  fair."  The  point  is,  if  the  argument 
he  uses  to  destroy  the  Book  of  Mormon  will 
also  destroy  the  Bible  if  applied  to  that 
book — the  argument  is  bad;  not  the  Bible 
bad,  but  the  argument.  Can  you  now  see 
the  point? 

Was  Joseph  Smith  a  polygamist?  He 
said  he  was.  Where  is  his  proof?  He 
cites  the  case  of  Mrs.  Foster,  an  old  trumped 
up  affair  got  up  by  a  gang  who  tried  to 
blackmail  JosepL  Smith.  Why  did  you  not 
read  the  full  statement?  It  would  have  ex- 
posed your  scheme.  I  will  read  it  from  a 
work  published  against  our  people.  Smuck- 
er's  history  of  the  Mormons,  page  174: 

"It  is  utterly  Incredible  that  Joseph  Smith,  who, 
rreat  impostor  that  he  was,  never  missed  an  opportun- 
ity to  denounce  seducers  and  adulterers  as  unfit  to  en- 
ter into  his  church,  should  have  bren  concerned  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  in  proceedings  like  these,  though 


it  is  scarcely  surprising:  thflt  when  snoh  stories  hnvt 
been  circulated  by  men  whom  the  "Prophet"  had  thwarted  or 
reprimanded,  there  should  have  been  found  some  per- 
sons willing  to  credit  them." 

These  are  the  suggestions  of  Mr.  Smucker 
after  sketching  through  the  purported 
tales  connected  with  Martha  Brotherton, 
Mrs.  Foster,  et  al.  The  so-called  affidavits 
referred  to  in  this  same  Mrs.  Foster  affair, 
after  being  brought  before  a  court,  having 
no  sympathies  with  Joseph  Smith,  were 
after  an  examination,  promptly  dismissed 
by  the  judge  as  being  unworthy  of  notice, 
and  being  "evidently  gotten  up  to  deceive 
the  people  and  slander  Smith." 
Mr.  Smucker  says  again,  page  379 : 
"As  the  Mormon  authorities  positively  deny  that 
Joseph  Smith  was  guilty  of  the  charge  often  alleged  in 
jnstiflcating  his  murder,  it  is  a  motive  of  caution  in  the 
receipt  of  evidence,  We  must  remember,  too,  that 
Smith  universally,  in  all  his  letters,  revelations  and 
speeches  denounced  adultery  and  fornication.  Subject 
as  all  founders  of  religious  systems  are  to  calumny,  we 
cannot  resist  the  doubt  that  there  may  have  been  misrep- 
res  ntation  and  exaggeration,  both  as  to  the  character  of 
Joseph  Smith  and  the  cause  of  his  untimely  end.  At  any 
rate,  and  under  any  circumstances,  it  is  impossible  to 
justify  the  acts  of  his  enemies,  either  in  the  persecu- 
tion of  his  followers,  or  in  the  circumstances  of  his 
death.  The  fanaticism  that  destroyed  him  is  to  be  con- 
demned quite  as  strongly  as  his  own." 

This  is  the  open  criticism  of  a  man  who 
has  carefully  gone  through  all  the  published 
stories  with  reference  to  these  charges  by 
the  Bennett's,  Law's,  Parishes',  and  in 
Ford's  History  of  Illinois,  etc.  And  if  an 
able  critic  and  enemy  of  Mr.  Smith  and  his 
religion,  after  an  examination  of  these 
things  stands  in  doubt  and  feels  that  to 
condemn  would  be  unjustifiable,  who  shall 
say  it  is  in  the  least  assumptious  or  fanati- 
cal for  his  friends  lo  maintain  that  he  was 
innocent?  Who  will  not  say  that  we  shall 
not  have  even  done  our  duty  as  men^  set- 
ting aside  the  fact  of  being  brethren,  if  we 
shall  fail  to  demand  the  proof  and  sift  it 
thoroughly,  ere  accepting  this  charge  as  true 
against  one  of  our  fellow  men,  who  cannot 
be  heard  in  his  own  behalf? 

But  Braden  drinks  in  all  these  lying 
statements  and  refuses  to'  accept  of  the 
reasonable  side.  No;  Smith  was  a  polyg- 
amist, he  says ;  but  not  one  of  the  Smith 
family  ever  went  to  Utah  or  into  Polygamy. 
His  father  died  a  monogamist  at  Nauvoo; 
his  brothers  Don  Carlos,  Samuel  Harrison 
and  Hyrum,  died  monogamists  in  Nauvoo  ; 
his  only  remaining  brother,  William  B., 
lives  in  Iowa  where  he  has  resided  for  years  ; 
his  sisters  all  remained  in  the  state  of  111., 
after  his  death,  and  the  only  survivor  is 
Mrs.  Salisbuiy,  a  lady  of  the  highest  char- 
acter, having  an  intelligent  family,  and  her 
husband  one  of  the  first  men  in  Hancock 
County,  111.  His  only  children,  Joseph, 
Alexander  H.  and  David  H.  are  all  mon- 
ogamists; twoof  them  for  the  last  eighteen 
yeas  being  actively  engaged  in  the  min- 
istry, and  only  two  days  ago  the  oldest,  and 
the  one  now  President  of  the  Church,  was 
called  to  Washington,  Iowa,  to  address  the 
State  Temperance  Society,  of  which  he  is 
the  Vice-President.  Joseph  Smith's  only 
wife,  Emma  (Hale)  Smith,  refused  to  go  to- 
Utah,  or  with  any  faction  of  the  church, 
and  as  a  true  heroine,  raised  her  children 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


373 


in  Nanvoo,  111.,  and  has  ever  maintained 
that  her  husband  has  been  Jied  about; 
that  he  never  had  any  wife  but  herself; 
and  that  he  was  never  married  in  any  way 
to  any  other  woman  than  herself;  and 
that  it  is  not  true  as  hawked  about  by  his 
enemies,  that  she  ever  burned  a  revelation 
of  her  husbands,  or  any  paper  purporting 
to  be  such  ;  that,  at  her  husband's  death  no 
one  mourned  as  his  wife  or  widow  but  her;  no 
claim  has  ever  been  made  by  any  woman  to 
her  face  that  she  was  also  a  wife ;  no  claim 
was  ever  made  for  any  children  but  her 
own,  that  they  were  his  children ;  and 
that  of  a  truth  her  husband  has  been  mal- 
igned by  those  who  had  in  view  a  sinister 
motive  "to  advance,  by  so  misrepresenting 
him. 

Taking  up  the  writings  of  Mr.  Smith, 
there  is  not  a  leaf,  scrap,  line  or  senti- 
ment of  his  own  writing,  in  the  world 
that  in  the  least  favors  polygamy.  On  the 
contrary,  every  sentiment  referring  to  the 
marriage  relation,  in  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenents  and  the 
Inspired  Translation  of  the  Bfble,  the 
works  emanating  from  his  own  hands, 
teaches  monogamy.  And  in  all  his  letters, 
notices,  press  articles  and  publications, 
sanctioned  by  him,  monogamy  is  injoined 
wherever  marriage  is  referred  to  in  such  a 
sense  as  to  call  forth  an  expression  of  his 
views. 

Mrs.  C.  V.  Wait,  in  her  history  of  Brig- 
ham  Young  and  his  Harem,  page  195, 
says  :  "Lucy  Decker,  married  to  Brigham 
Young,  was  the  first  wife  in  plurality,  and 
the  first  child  in  polygamy  was  Brigham 
Heber,  born  to  Brigham  Young  in  1847." 
This  marriage  took  place  about  two  years 
after  Joseph  Smith's  death.  But  he  says, 
"  there  are  women  in  Utah  who  claim  to 
have  been  married  to  Joseph  Smith."  But 
how,  and  when?  When  he  was  living? 
No;  you  cannot  point  to  a  woman  who 
made  the  claim  while  he  was  living.  Years 
after  hs  was  dead  you  could  find  them 
tnough.  How  were  they  married  to  him? 
I  will  read  the  work  of  John  Hyde,  a  Utah 
Elder  at  one  time,  and  who  left  them  and 
made  an  expose  of  their  religion.  He  united 
with  that  church  in  1848,  four  years  after 
Smith's  death.  His  book  is  the  one  where 
Braden  has  sought  for  testimony.  He  says, 
as  to  polygamy,  page  87: 

"  Not  only  is  It  deemed  proper  to  take  the  widowi  of 
gome  good  brother,  but  also  to  take  fresh  wives  for 

\ourdcad  brother.    There  was  a  lady  named  P , 

in  Salt  Lake,  in  1854.  who  had  heard  of  and  loved  Smith, 
lie  I  ad  been  dead  for  ten  years ;  but  that  is  nothing  to 
the  wings  of  Mormon  fai'h.  She  was  desirous  to  be 
sealed  to  him,  although,  1  believe,  she  had  a  husband 
still  living  in  the  Stales  Brigham  contented  to  act  as 
proxy  or  agent  for  Joseph  Smith,  and  accordingly  the  in. 

ten-sling  ceremony  wits  performed.     Mrs.  P ,  good 

soul,  gave  up  all  her  property  to  the  church,  faithfully 
be'icvint:  Kho  had  joined  the  mim  rors  army  of  the 
Smiths  in  general,  under  the  special  banner  of  the 
Piophet Joseph." 

This  is  sufficient  without  comment. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the 
close  thinker,  that  after  the  death  of  Josep^ 
Smith,  there  was  a  studied  effort  made  oi' 
the  part  of  Young,  Kim  ball  and  a  few 


others  to  connect  the  Prophet  with  polyg- 
amy, if  possible,  in  order  to  weigh  in  their 
own  behalf,  in  carrying  out  their  schemes  ; 
and  this  scheme  of  marrying  women  to  the 
dead,  was  gotten  up  by  them  in  order  to 
more  perfectly  carry  forward  the  design. 

After  this  piece  of  silly  nonsense,  of 
marrying  a  woman  to  Brigham,  (but  osten- 
sibly to  the  dead,  who  could  utter  no  pro- 
test,) had  taken  place,  then  Brigham  would 
tell  them  they  were  wives  of  Joseph  Smith, 
and  they  would  so  claim  to  the  "  brethren," 
and  so,  the  perversion  of  history  was  well- 
nigh  made  complete,  by  this  cunning. 
Thus  many  good  honest  men  and  women 
were  deceived,  and  led  to  believe  Joseph 
Smith  had  more  wives  than  one,  because 
they  had  not  the  courage,  after  passing 
through  Brigham  Young's  Endowment 
House,  to  look  these  hypocrites  in  the  face, 
and  ask  them: — When  were  you  married 
to  him?  Who  officiated?  Did  you  live  in 
his  house  or  some  dark  corner?  Where 
are  your  children  you  had  by  Joseph 
Smith?  You  seem  to  have  plenty  by  Brig- 
ham  Young?  Were  you  classed  with  the 
mourning  widow  and  children  at  Nauvoo, 
at  the  time  of  his  death?  If  not,  why  not? 
Where  is  your  marriage  certificate?  Why 
did  you  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  have 
one? 

My  friends,  the  stories  of  these  people 
are  too  absurd  for  honest  men.  No  promi- 
nent man's  reputation  is  safe,  if  we  accept 
such  as  evidence. 

But,  he  says  he  will  prove  it  from  our 
own  paper,  the  tiaints'  Herald.  Now,  is  it 
not  singular,  that  this  evidence  should  be 
in  our  paper,  and  we  not  know  it?  If  as  a 
people,  we  claim  all  the  time  that  Joseph 
Smith  was  not  in  polygamy,  or  if  he  was, 
we  have  never  had  evidence  of  it,  are  we 
to  be  termed  fantical  upon  this,  when  the 
strongest  evidence  he  says  he  can  find,  is  in 
our  own  church  paper?  It  ought  to  strike 
any  sensible  man  that  if  such  a  thing  as  he 
terms  evidence,  is  in  our  church  paper,  and 
at  the  same  time  as  a  people,  we  do  not 
believe  the  charge  of  polygamy,  made 
against  Joseph  Smith  to  be  true,  that  we 
must  have  some  good  reason  for  it.  He 
would  hardly  charge  the  body  with  either 
ignorance,  or  a  lack  of  sufficient  courage  to 
admit  that  Mr.  Smith  was  guilty,  if  we 
had  the  proofs.  Whether  guilty  or  not, 
does  not  injure  our  faith  ;  we  say  the  charge 
is  false  because  we  are  convinced  of  it. 
And  my  opponent  after  his  unsuccessful 
effort  to  destroy  my  faith  with  his  own 
choice  of  weapons,  from  whatever  source 
he  could  gather  them,  will  hardly  be  able 
to  effectively  turn  my  own  against  me. 
Such  a  thing  as  attempting  it,  to  say  the 
least,  smacks  highly  of  egotism,  and  is 
utterly  ridiculous. 

I  read  in  full  what  is  said  upon  this  ques- 
tion in  our  paper  at  Wilber,  and  Mr.  lira- 
den  knows  it  don't  prove  what  he  asserts, 
if  he  can  understand  the  English  language 
at  all,  in  a  matter  wherein  his  prejudices 
govern. 

I  will  read  what  he  claims  as  proving 


871 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


that  Joseph  Smith  was  in  polygamy  and 
received  the  purported  polygamous  Revela- 
ation  in  Elder  Mark's  letter.  Vol.  I,  page 
26,  Saints'  Herald. 

•'  He  said,  it  [polygamy]  eventually  would  prove 
the  overthrow  of  the  church,  and  we  should  soon  be 
obliged  to  leave  the  United  States,  unless  it  could  be 
speedily  put  down.  He  was  satisfied  that  it  was  a 
vursed  doctrine,  and  that  there  must  be  every  exertion 
made  to  put  it  down.  He  said  he  would  go  before  the 
congregation  and  proclaim  against  it,  and  I  must  go 
into  the  High  Council,  and  he  would  prefer  charges 
against  those  in  transgression,  and  1  must  sever  them 
from  the  church,  unless  they  made  ample  satisfaction, 
There  was  much  more  said,  but  this  was  the  sub- 
stance." 

This  is  Braden's  strong  hold,  and  my 
friends  be  candid  and  examine  it,  and  show 
no  favor  to  Joseph  Smith  in  doing  it,  and 
what  have  you? 

1.  That  somebody  was  doing  something 
In  the  church  not  right — Going  into  polyg- 
amy. 

2.  "That  it  must  be  speedily  put  down." 
Well,   does  that  sound  as  though  he  wa» 
going  to  dilly-dally  about  the  matter? 

8.  "That  it  was  a  cursed  doctrine." 
Does  that  sound  as  though  he  had  received 
a  revelation  endorsing  it?  He  would  have 
struck  at  the  revelation  instead  of  the 
doctrine.  He  referred  to  it  as  being  the 
doctrine  practiced  by  David  and  Solomon. 
And  learned  fifteen  years  before  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  page  116,  that  it  was  a 
cursed  doctrine. 

4.  "  That  he  would  go  before  the  congre- 
gation and  proclaim  against  it.1'  Does  that 
sound  like  it  was  his  revelation  then,  or 
that  he  was  guilty? 

5:  "That  (Marks)  must  go  into  the  High 
Council,  and  he  (Smith)  would  prefer 
charges  against  those  in  transgression, 
and  (Marks)  must  sever  them  from  the 
church." 

Does  this  sound  like  a  man  that  was 
guilty  himself  with  the  others?  He  to 
prefer  charges  and  have  all  the  transgres- 
sors cut  off  from  the  church.  And  yet, 
Braden  would  have  you  believe  that  this 
statement  of  Marks  which  he  accepts  as 
correct  (because  it  would  bean  insult  to  you 
for  him  to  introduce  evidence  on  his  side 
which  he  did  not  accept  as  true)  proves 
Joseph  Smith  was  into  polygamy  and  re- 
ceived a  revelation  endorsing  it.  Don't 
anybody  know  that  if  Smith  had  received 
a  revelation  endorsing  polygamy,  that  they 
could  not  have  cut  a  man  off  from  the 
church  for  accepting  it,  until  the  church 
had  condemned  the  revelation  ? 

The  very  procedure  directed  by  Joseph 
Smith  in  this  case  destroys  every  presump- 
tion of  there  being  such  a  revelation  in 
existence  at  that  time.  This  was,  says 
Elder  Marks  in  the  saiue  letter,  "but  a  few 
days  before  his  death."  This  seals  the 
matter  then.  I  have  traced  Joseph  Smith 
with  reference  to  this  question  from  his 
boyhood  to  within  a  few  days  of  his  death 
with  evidence  that  no  man  can  deny,  and 
every  word  and  act  has  been  against  poly- 
gamy. Shall  I  go  back  on  all  this  now  and 
ao-ept  the  undefined  statement  of  Brigham 
1  oung  made  eight  years  after  this — that  he 


"had  a  copy  of  the  revelation?"  Never.  I 
should  thus  wrong  justice  and  the  dead,  and 
so  would  any  other  man. 

But  he  says  Elder  Sheen  gave  his  testi- 
mony. Does  that  prove  it?  I  will  read  it, 
page  27  : 

"The  Salt  Lake  apostles  also  excuse  themselves  by 
saying  Joseph  Smith  taught  the  spiritu  1  wife  doctrine; 
but  this  excuse  is  as  weak  as  their  excuse  concerning 
the  ancient  kings  and  patriarchs.  Joseph  Smith  re- 
pented of  his  connection  with  this  doctrine  and  said 
that  it  was  of  the  devil.  He  caused  the  revelations  on 
that  subject  to  be  burned  and  when  he  voluntarily 
came  to  Nauvoo  and  resigned  himself  into  the  arms  o'f 
his  enemies  he  said  that  he  was  going  to  Carthage 
to  die." 

This  is  an  argument  of  Sheen's  ;  he  never 
pretended  to  have  had  any  knowledge  of 
his  own.  He  was  arguing  from  the  accep- 
ted statement  of  the  Brighamites.  Emma 
Smith  had  been  charged  by  them  with  burn- 
ing the  revelation  on  polygamy,  and  that 
Joseph  gave  it  to  her  to  burn;  and  Elder 
Sheen  here  argues  from  the  premises  that 
if  Joseph  did  this,  he  must  have  repented 
of  polygamy.  Then  he  bases  his  argument 
that  it  was  a  "cursed  doctrine,"  upon  the 
statement  made  by  Elder  Marks  in  the  let- 
ter to  which  I  have  already  referred.  There 
is  absolutely  no  more  evidence  in  this  than 
in  the  remarks  of  the  lawyer  after  the  wit- 
nesses have  given  in  their  evidence.  The 
letter  of  Elder  Marks  was  one  thing  he 
based  his  argument  upon,  and  the  state- 
ment of  Brighana  Young,  "that  Joseph  gave 
the  revelation  to  Emma  to  burn  and  she 
bnrned  it,"  was  the  other.  You  and  I  can 
argue  and  draw  our  conclusions  upon  the 
statements  as  well  and  as  truly  as  could 
Elder  Sheen. 

But  hold  a  moment.  Elder  Sheen  had  not 
got  all  of  the  statements  or  evidence  to  this 
time ;  when  that  came  there  was  another 
tale  altogether. 

Mrs.  Emma  Smith  is  the  next  witness. 
She  says:  "I  never  burned  any  revelation 
of  my  husband's  nor  anything  claiming  to 
be  such.  I  would  not  have  thought  of  doing 
such  a  thing."  Here  it  is.  It  has  come 
down  to  this,  as  to  whether  we  will 
believe  Brigham  Young  on  this  point  of  the 
revelation  or  the  Elect  Lady.  For  my  part 
I  believe  the  lady.  Braden  prefers  to  be- 
lieve Brigham. 

Take  with  this  the  published  statement 
of  Brigham  Young  in  the  Tabernacle  in 
Utah  in  1856,  that  there  was  no  child  of 
Joseph  Smith's  in  Utah  Territory  (where 
the  only  persons  were  who  claimed  to  be  his 
wives)  and  you  have  polygamy  knocked  in 
the  head  as  to  him,  and  the  purported  re- 
velation is  as  the  church  has  ever  claimed,  a 
fraud  and  a  forgery.  Brigham  Young  him- 
self said,  on  August  7Mi,  1852,  reported  in 
his  sermon  in  his  own  Journal  of  Discourses, 
that  no  man  in  existence  knew  that  he  had 
such  a  copy  of  a  revelation  till  that  day. 
Yet  Braden  will  ignore  the  plain  clear  line 
of  facts  relating  to  Joseph  Smith's  views, 
and  drink  in  the  lies  of  John  C.  Bennett, . 
William  Law,  Joseph  Foster,  et  al,  who 
got  mad  at  Smith  and  tried  to  destroy  his 
character  because  "Smith  in  a  publio 
meeting  exposed  Bennett  for  kissing  a  Mrs. 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


375 


Pratt  over  a  picket  fence."  This  picket 
fence  business  Smith  determined  to  break 
up,  and  this  is  the  reason  that  the  nest  of 
these  licentiates  rebelled,  and  began  a  fu- 
rious assault  upon  Joseph  Smith.  The 
charge  of  his  swearing  in  the  Council  at 
at  Nauvoo  is  a  most  infamous  lie  from  this 
same  gang.  But  I  will  not  take  up  further 
time  replying  to  such  a  charge.  Every 
sane  man  knows  that  Smith  could  never 
have  acted  in  this  way,  and  retained  the 
confidence  of  his  followers  as  he  did  all 
through.  This  is  the  family,  then,  that 
Braden  has  been  so  unjustifiably  and  ma- 
liciously slandering  and  berating,  even 
speaking  disrespectful  of  the  girls  of  the 
family.  As  foul  a  slander  as  was  ever  made 
against  any  person.  He  has  continually 
misrepresented  Mrs.  Smith's  history,  and 
now  turned  to  vilifying  the  old  lady  herself, 
just  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  his 
boast  before  he  came  here  of  making  war 
upon  the  Latter  Day  Saint's  cause.  "  War 
to  the  knife  and  the  knife  to  the  hilt."  He  has 
avowed  war,  yet  signed  an  agreement  to 
discuss  for  the  purpose  of  eliciting  truth, 
and  of  having  an  honorable  discussion. 
Anything  is  honorable  in  "war  to  the  knife 
and  the  knife  to  the  hilt,"  so  he  has 
worked.  Since  he  has  boldly  proclaimed 
war  against  this  church,  I  give  him  now 
to  understand  that  when  he  wants  to 
renew  the  attack  my  address  is  Kirdand, 
Ohio.  (Applause). 

My  opponent  still  claims  that  there  were 
only  two  Melehizedek  priestf,  that  of  Mel- 
chizedek  and  Christ.  But  Christ  was  made 
a  priest,  Paul  says,  "  after  theorrferof  Mel- 
chizedek." What  kind  of  a  line  or  order 
would  it  be  with  only  two  priests  in  it? 

I  have  already  exposed  the  idea  that 
because  Christ  was  a  priest  continually  that 
therefore  he  was  the  last.  Melchizedek 
before  him  as  positively  shown,  is  a  priest 
continually,  and  he  is  not  the  last.  You 
just  as  well  take  the  ground  that  Jesus  was 
the  last  apostle,  and  that  Peter,  James  and 
John  and  all  others  were  frauds  because 
he  abides  an  apostle  continually. 

He  is  also  "consecrated  for  evermore,"  to 
be  a  priest;  but  does  that  do  away  with  the 
necessity  of  the  priest's  office  being  filled 
again  here  on  earth  in  the  church. 

John  the  Apostle  was  a  priest,  as  well  as 
an  apostle,  so  laid  down  by  Polycrates.  He 
says:  "John,  that  rested  on  the  bosom  of 
our  Lord,  who  was  a  priest  that  bore  the 
sacerdotal  plate."  Moses  and  Elijah  and 
Job  and  Isaiah  and  Jethro  were  priests. 
Not  of  the  Aaronic  order,  either,  and  must 
have  been  of  the  higher  priesthood.  The 
other  is  called  the  "lesser;"  it  would  not 
be  the  "  lesser"  if  there  were  more  than 
two,  nor  spoken  of  in  that  way.  Not  least, 
but  lesser,  signifying  but  two  orders. 

Upon  this  subject  of  priesthood,  Smith, 
in  his  Bible  Dictionary,  under  the  name 
friext,  says:  "That  the  New  Testament 
writers  recognize  in  Christ,  the  First-born, 
the  King,  the  Anointed,  the  Representa- 
tive of  the  true  primeval  priesthood  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedek,  from  which  that 


of  Aaron,  however  necessary  for  the  ti 
is  now  seen  to  have  been  a  deflection." 
There  having  been  a  change  under  the  law 
there  was  a  change  in  the  priesthood  ;  buG 
the  change  of  the  priesthood  was  not  to 
abolish  any  more  than  it  was  abolished 
as  long  as  Moses  and  Joshua  held  another 
office  than  in  the  Aaronic  line,  at  the  same 
time  that  the  Aaronic  was  in  force.  And 
there  may  come  a  time  when  there  will  be 
no  use  for  the  Aaronic  order,  since  it  is  a 
deflection,  but  not  till  man  is  able  to  live  in 
a  more  perfect  state  than  now.  But  of  the 
other  it  is  "without  beginning  of  days  or 
end  of  years;"  and  hence,  continues  for- 
ever, and  they  who  are  priests  therein, 
and  overcome  the  evils  of  life,  retaining 
the  priesthood,  are  priests  forever,  neces- 
sarily. John  the  Baptist  evidently  was 
an  Aaronic  priest.  But  I  must  pass  rapidly 
on. 

It  must  be  apparent  to  everyone  who  has 
attended  this  discussion,  that  it  has  not 
been  the  object  of  my  opponent  to  evince 
truth  and  advance  the  right,  touching  the 
faith  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  but  that  he 
has  continually  manifested  a  morbid  desire 
to  scandalize,  falsify  and  misrepresent,  and 
has  exhibited  all  the  characteristics  of 
personal  spile  and  pique  toward  the  Latter 
Day  Saints.  Accepting  and  using  any  kind 
of  warfare,  jnst  so  he  fancied  it  would  heep 
opprobrium  upon  the  objects  of  his  hate. 
His  desperate  threat  made  before  his  arrival 
in  Kirtland,  that  he  had  declared  eternal 
war  on  the  Latter  Day  Saint's  cause  ;  "war 
to  the  knife,  and  knife  to  the  hilt,"  is  his 
Christian-like  language  he  has  endeavored 
to  carry  out  to  the  utmost.  Anything  has 
been  fair  means  with  him.  He  has  done  his 
utmost,  but  has  been  foiled  and  defeated  in 
his  mad  and  desperate  purpose.  He  has 
not  brought  facts  and  argument,  but  tales, 
scandal  and  ridicule  and  lying  and  blasphe- 
mous assertions.  Objecting  to  honorable 
and  true  methods  of  debate,  like  the  bird 
called  the  turkey-buzzard,  he  has  skimmed 
the  country  from  east  to  west  for  dead  car- 
casses, rotten  and  putrifying  flesh  in  the 
shape  of  gossip,  slander,  stories  and  scan- 
dal circulated  by  lying  hypocrites,  black 
legs  and  the  licentious,  because  they  had 
nothing  better  with  which  to  meet  the 
truth,  has  filled  his  craw,  and  night  after 
night  has  come  and  puked  it  out  to  this 
audience  as  argument.  No  lie  has  been  too 
great,  or  scandal  too  low  and  contemptible, 
for  him  to  keep  back.  Not  satisfied  with 
scandalizing  honorable  and  worthy  men, 
but  innocent  women  and  girls  are  assailed 
by  his  vile  and  slanderous  tongue;  and 
when  done  with  the  living,  hyena-like  he 
has  entered  the  graves  of  the  dead  and. 
gratified  his  hate  by  attacking  their  decay- 
ing bones.  All  who  slander  and  lie  about 
the  Latter  Day  Saints,  &te>  first  citizens  and. 
Christians  with  this  holy  Clark.  All  others 
are  liars  and  thieves  and  not  worth  believ-. 
ing.  When  reminded  that  vituperation 
and  lying  slanders  are  not  argument,  and 
that,  a  similar  line  of  tirade  against  the 
Bible  will  destroy  the  institutions  of  Moses 


376 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


and  the  prophets,  he  has  always  called  out, 
you  are  attacking  the  Bible. 

On  this  account  only,  I  have  been  led  the 
past  few  evenings  to  use  arguments  that 
•would  cut,  and  handle  his  matter  according 
to  its  rottenness  ;  and  throughout,  I  have 
been  more  than  ever  in  my  life  before,  con- 
firmed in  the  belief,  that  Jesus  meant  truly 
what  he  said,  when  he  was  accused  of  all 
that  was  evil  and  abominable,  and  mal- 
treated and  scourged  : — "If  they  do  this  in 
the  green  tree  what  will  they  do  in  the 
dry?"  If  they  have  so  abused  the  Master 
of  the  House,  what  will  they  not  do  to  the 
Household? 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  question  is  : — 
Is  the  Re-organized  church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter  Day  Saints,  in  fact  the  church  of 
God  and  accepted  with  him? 

I  have  shown  you :  First.  By  Eph.  3d, 
that  the  family  of  God  take  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  "of  whom  the  whole  family 
in  heaven  and  earth  is  named."  Also, 
that  the  children  are  called  Saints,  and 
ought  to  be  so  known  ;  that  we  live  in  the 
last  times,  and  hence  are  Latter  Day  Saints 
—not  Former  Day  Saints.  That  the  church 
was  organized  in  1830,  was  rejected  in  1844, 
and  its  ministry  and  members  scattered, 
and  Re-organized  in  the  year  1852.  Hence 
the  church  to-day  is  properly  incorporated 
under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  as  the 
Re-organized  church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Lat- 
ter Day  Saints. 

2.  I  have  shown  that  in  faith  and  doc- 
trine it  is  identical  with  the  church  in  the 
first  century,  established  by  Jesus  and  the 
apostles. 

3.  That  in  organization    it  is  with   the 
church  of  Christ  in  the  first  century,  having 
Apostles,  Prophets,  Seventy,  (Evangelists,) 
Bishops,    High    Priests,     Elders,     Priests, 
Teachers,  Deacons  and  Assistants. 

4.  That,  as  in  the  early  church,  there  is 
order  and  arrangement  so  that   the  mem- 
bers in  the  body  are  regularly  guided  and 
directed  in  their  work,  and  that  the  officers 
taking  precedence  under  the   law   are  also 
known    as     Presidents,     Apostles,     High 
Priests,   Bishops,   Presidents  of  Quorums, 
and  Presiding  Elders,  Priests,  Teachers  and 
Deacons. 

5.  That  as  in   the  church   Jesus  estab- 
lished there  is  faith,  repentance,  the  ordi- 
nances of  baptism  in  water  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  the  laying  on  of  hands  for 
confirmation  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and  eternal  judgment,   which  judgment  is 
for  the  purpose  of  rewarding  all  men  accord- 
ing to  the  deeds  done  in   the   body,  and  in 
accordance  witht  the  degree  of  good  and  evil 
they  shall  have  done. 

6.  That  in  organization  there  is  also  pro- 
vision for  an  associate  Presidency  of  three, 
as  was  that  of  James,  Peter  and  John  under 
the  constitution,  the  New  Testament,  after 
Jesus  had  ascended  to  Heaven.    That  when 
he  was  here  in  person  there  were  thirteen 
apostles,   and  he  presided,  and  being  the 
Son  of  God,  I  conclude  that  he  could  do  so 
without  associates,   but    that   afterwards, 


Peter,  James  and  John  held  the  pre-eminent 
right,  and  hence  the  apostle  Paul  refers  to 
them  as  "Pillars"  in  the  church. 

7.  That   besides  the  twelve  which   Jesus 
chose  whije  here,  he  afterwards  through  the 
manifestations    of   the    Holy  Spirit,  chose 
others  of  which  we  have  record,  to-wit: — 
Matthias,  Acts  1  : 15-20 ;  Barnabas  and  Paul, 
Acts  13:  1-6  and  14;  Andronicus  and  Junia, 
Rom.  16:7;  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  Gal. 
1:19;    and    Sylvanus  and    Timotheus,     1 
Thess.  1 : 2-6. 

These,  including  Jesus  who  was  an 
apostle,  shows  a  succession  in  the  church  of 
these  officers  to  the  number  of  twenty-one. 
Besides  these  there  were  prophets  and 
prophetesses  in  the  New  Testament  church 
as  Agabus  and  the  four  daughters  of  Philip. 

8.  That  the  church  was  adorned  in  this 
manner  when  John  saw  it  go  into  the  wil- 
derness with  the  crown  of  twelve  stars  and 
the  Gospel  light  of  theSon  of  Righteousness, 
and  that  the  same  beautiful  adornment  and 
working  organization    is    revealed  in   the 
order  presented  by  the  church  to-day,  and 
that  it  is  clothed  with  the  same  Gospel  of 
peace — the  way  of  life  and  immortality. 

9.  That  the  church  has  not  only  been  re- 
instated in  organization  and  Gospel  light, 
but  that  in  fact  the  gifts,  powers,  blessings, 
graces,  promises  and  "faith  once  delivered 
to  the  Saints"  are  restored  again  and  may 
be  enjoyed  by  all  who  will  live  godly  in 
Christ  Jesus  and  seek  after  them. 

10.  That  inspiration  and  the  gift  or  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  confined 
to  the  first  century,   but  that  the  promise 
was   to  all,   "even    as   many  as   the  Lord 
should  call."    And  that  truly  "a  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  [in 
the  church  of  Jesus  Christ]  to  profit  with 
all,"  and  that  it  is  thus  "a  spiritual  house," 
"a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit," 
when  acceptable  with  him.     "He  that  hath 
my  commandments  and  keepeththem,  he  it 
is  that  loveth  me,  and  my  Father  will  love 
him  and  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make 
our  abode  with  him."     "He  that  abideth  in 
the  doctrine  of   Christ   he  hath  both   the 
Father  and  the  Son." 

Has  my  opponent  showed  a  single  thing 
wherein  we  differed  from  the  doctrine  of 
Christ? 

All  of  you  n?ust  say  no.  He  has  been  all 
the  time  telling  stories  on  Smith,  Rigdon. 
Whitmer,  et  aL,  and  rakingaround  in  the 
dust  of  the  Spauldlng  story.  But  that  story 
is  done.  I  have  traced  that  tale  to  its  very 
seat.  I  found  the  manuscript  for  him, 
showed  him  it  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
one  of  his  "first  citizens,"  Hulburt;  that  it 
was  then  put  into  the  hands  of  another  of 
his  "first  citizens,"  Howe  ;  that  then  these 
two  "first  citizens"  had  said  it  did  not  read 
as  they  expected  and  they  did  not  use  it ; 
that  afterwards  they  tried  to  make  out  it 
was  not  the  one,  in  order  to  protect  their 
"statements"  of  certain  parties  ;  that  they 
were  foiled  in  this  because  the  one  they  had 
was  the  one  on  parchment  which  purported 
on  its  face  to  have  been "Foun din  a  Cave;1' 
that  Howe  and  Hulburt  promised  to  returv 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


377 


this  to  Mrs.  Spaulding  which,  had  they 
done,  it  would  have  forever  prohibited 
them  from  claiming  it  was  not  the  right 
one,  and  that  they  broke  their  promise  and 
destroyed  it;  but  they  kept  their  statements 
from  trumped  up  persons  who  were  bent 
on  sinking  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  publish- 
ed them.  That  satisfies  me  on  the  Spauld- 
ing tale  forever. 
I  have  not  only  showed  you  all  of  this 


and  the  identity  in  faith,  practices,  ordin- 
ances, organization  and  work  of  the  church, 
but  that  we  were  in  fact  sowing  the  word  of 
life,  the  good  seed  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
which  Jesus  promised  should  bring  forth 
fruit  "some  an  hundred  fold,  some  sixty  and 
som«  thirty."  I  thank  you,  ladies  and 
gei  t'emen,  for  your  every  courtesy  and 
attention.  (Applause). 


/  hereby  certify  thai  I  have  corrected  and  prepared  the  foregoing  speeches  of  myzelf 
without  access  to,  or  consultation  with,  those  of  Mr.  Braden  xhire  the  debate.  Have  read 
the  proofs  of  the  name  fnrinxli'd  by  the  publishers,  and  that  they  Uave  been  set  forth  as 
delivered  in  the  discussion  of  the  respective  propositions. 

E.  L. 


MR.   BRADEN'S   EIGHTH  SPEECH. 


GENTLEMEN  MODKPATOBS,  LADIKS  AND 
GENTLEMEN  : — We  will  merely  notice  the 
frantic  effort  of  my  opponent  to  set  to  one 
side  the  evidence  that  Joe  Smith  was  author 
of  the  revelation  on  polygamy.  The  facts 
are  these:  In  the  first  number  of  the  official 
organ  of  the  He-organized  Mormon  faction 
there  appeared — I.  A  statement  in  the  first 
and  leading  editorial  written  by  Zenos  H. 
Gurley  that  Joseph  was  the  author  of  that 
revelation  and  was  slain  for  his  conduct  in 
the  matter.  Gurley  was  one  of  the  Re-or- 
ganizers, was  a  leader,  and  is  to-day.  II. 
A  statement  by  Isaac  Sheen,  one  of  the  Re- 
organizers,  and  a  leader,  one  of  the  editors, 
that  Smith  said  that  he  was  the  author  of 
it  and  said  that  it  caused  all  of  his  trou- 
bles, and  would  cost  him  his  life.  Kelley 
says  Sheen  retracted  it.  I  deny  it.  He  can- 
not furnish  one  scrap  of  proof.  III.  Another 
statement  by  W.  H.  Marks,  another  Re-or- 
ganizer and  editor,  that  while  Smith  was 
prophet  and  his  influence  was  omnipotent 
in  the  church,  polygamy  prevailed  to  such 
an  extent  that  Marks  declared  t  ho  only  way 
to  purify  the  church  was  todis-organize  it ; 
that  Smith  became  alarmed  and  come  to 
Marks,  whom  he  had  been  denouncing  as 
an  apostate  for  opposing  polygamy,  to  get 
him  to  help  stay  the  tide  of  infamy,  believ- 
ing that  public  feeling  would  drive  Mor- 
mons and  polygamy  out  of  the  country. 
These  declarations  stood  unchallenged  fif- 
teen years.  Now  Mormons  are  trying  to  lie 
out  of  them. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  question  we 
tested  Mormonism  by  its  teachings  in  regard 
to  the  eight  great  elements  of  Christianity 
laid  down  by  Paul.  I.  One  God.  II  One 


Lord.  III.  One  Spirit.  IV.  One  faith.  V. 
One  baptism.  VI.  One  hope.  VII.  One 
body.  VIII.  One  name.  We  read  from 
the  works  of  the  Pratts  and  others  that 
were  published  before  Smith's  death,  ap- 
proved by  him,  and  that  were  standards  of 
the  Mormons,  and  that  expressed  what  were 
their  universal  sentiments -•  from  their 
papers  published  before  his  death,  from  his 
own  declarations  published  in  their  papers 
arid  from  publications  universally  accepted 
by  them,  and  from  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
declarations  that  God  has  a  body  like  man, 
is  a  material  organism  with  all  of  man's 
organs,  even  of  eating,  drinking,  digest- 
ing, evacuating,  and  procreating,  and  that 
he  uses  them.  That  he  procreated  spirits, 
and  that  spirits  are  procreated  in  heaven, 
before  inhabiting  bodies,  procreated  for 
them  by  men  and  women  on  earth.  That 
matter  is  self-existent  and  eternal,  and  that 
God  is  the  creature  of  matter.  That  he  is 
not  infinite  in  knowledge  and  power,  and 
not  everywhere  present,  but  has  been  in- 
creasing his  attributes  since  he  came  into 
being  from  matter,  and  will  ever  increase. 
That  all  Saints  will  increase  and  become 
Gods.  That  they  will  equal  Christ.  We 
exposed  the  mate'rialism,  idolatry  and  dis- 
gusting sensuality  of  the  system  in  its 
teaching  in  regard  to  God  and  heaven.  My 
opponent  tried  to  deny  it.  At  last  he  ap- 

E3aled  to  the  figurative  language  of  the 
ible,  literalizing  it  in  the  most  gross  man- 
ner, assuming  that  God  has  literal  hands, 
feet,  eyes,  mouth,  ears;  that  man  is  like 
him  in  his  physical  organization,  and  though 
he  stopped  short  of  announcing  it,  he  logi- 
cally endorsed  all  of  the  gross  sensualism 


878 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


of  the  Pratts  and  Joe  Smith.  The  Bible 
declares  that  there  is  nothing  to  which  God 
can  be  likened.  He  is  infinite  everywhere 
present,  infinite  in  power  and  wisdom,  not 
finite  in  time,  space,  form  or  attributes. 
The  Mormon  God  has  all  of  man's  organs, 
and  as  Pratt  has  it,  eats,  drinks,  digests, 
evacuates,  procreates,  just  like  man  ;  is  an 
idol  of  matter,  a  creature  of  matter,  and 
very  finite,  as  all  Saints  will  equal  him, 
surpass  what  he  is  now.  Mormon  ism  is  a 
disgusting  compound  of  materialism,  sen- 
sualism and  idolatry,  and  as  unlike  the 
Sure  spirituality  of  .the  teachings  of  the 
ible  as  the  system  of  the  Hindoo  Jugger- 
naut. 

We  next  exposed  the  blasphemy  of  the 
system  in  regard  lo  the  origin  of  our  Savior's 
spiritual  nature.  We  showed  that  it  denied 
that  he  is  our  sole  divine  prophet,  by 
placing  above  his  teachings  in  the  Bible, 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  Joe  Smith's  lying 
frauds,  as  ''the  fullness  of  the  Gospel." 
That  it  denied  that  he  is  our  sole  divine 
King,  by  placing  above  his  law  in  the  Bible, 
Joe  Smith's  lying  frauds  as  "th«  fullness  of 
the  law  of  God." 

We  next  showed  that  it  was  unscriptural 
and  false  in  every  teaching  in  regard  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  assumed  that  the  only  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  is  the  direct  and  mirac- 
ulous influence,  in  opposition  to  the  Scrip- 
tures and  common  sense.  The  Scriptures 
teach  there  are  four  powers  of  the  Spirit. 
The  miraculous  inspiration  and  revelation 
and  the  converting,  the  sanctifying  and 
the  indwelling  power,  and  through  the 
truth.  My  opponent  has  denied  this  clear 
teaching  of  reason  and  revelation,  and 
confounded  all  power  exerted  by  the 
Spirit,  and  claimed  that  all  is  miracu- 
lous power.  He  has  mis-applied  prom- 
ises of  the  miraculous  power.  He  has 
applied  what  was  promised  to  the  apostles, 
miraculous  power  to  qualify  them  for  their 
work,  to  all  Christians.  He,  in  flat  contra- 
diction of  the  word  of  God,  applies  the 
promise  of  the  baptism  in  the  Spirit  to  all 
Christians,  and  claims  that  it  is  in  the 
church  now,  in  flat  contradiction  of  God's 
word,  that  declares  thereis  only  one  baptism 
in  the  church,  baptism  in  water.  He  has 
absurdly  tried  to  make  one  the  baptism 
in  water  and  the  baptism  in  the  Spirit, 
when  John  says  men  administer  one  ;  Christ 
alone  administered  the  other.  He  does  not 
know  the  difference  between  immersion  by 
one  Spirit,  that  is,  by  the  command  of  one 
Spirit,  and  immersion  in  the  Spirit.  Be- 
tween born  of  the  Spirit  and  immersion  in 
the  Spirit;  between  renewal  of  the  Spirit 
and  immersion  in  the  Spirit.  He  does  not 
know  the  difference  between  the  moral  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit,  through  the  word  in 
conversion  and  sanctification  and  the 
miraculous  power  of  the  Spirit  in  inspira- 
tion, spiritual  gifts,  miraculous  powers, 
immersion  in  the  Spirit.  He  does  not  know 
the  difference  between  the  indwelling  of 
the  Spirit  and  the  miraculous  influence  of 
the  Spirit.  He  reads  instances  of  the  mirac- 
ulous influence  of  the  Spirit,  claims  it  for 


all  Christians,  because  he  finds  the  Spirit 
promised  to  all  Christians,  overlooking  the 
teaching  of  the  Bible,  that  all  Christians 
receive  the  moral  influence,  the  influ- 
ence through  the  Iruth  alone,  and 
that  only  those  that  God  used  to 
do  work  requiring  miraculous  influ- 
ence, received  it.  He  absurdly  assumes 
that  because  some  men  whom  God  used  for 
purposes  that  required  miraculous  influence 
received  it,  all  Christians  must  have  it, 
overlooking  the  fact  that  they  are  not  called 
to  such  work,  and  do  not  need  it.  He  flatly 
contradicts  Paul's  teaching  that  there  is  a 
better  way  than  the  exercise  of  the  best 
miraculous  powers.  That  all  miraculous 
powers  shall  cease  when  they  have  accom- 
plished their  purpose,  the  completion  of  the 
constitution  of  the  church,  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  organization  of  the  church 
under  it.  This  clear,  positive  teaching  of 
God's  word  he  rejects.  He  claims  miracu- 
lous powers  and  has  utterly  failed  to  furn- 
ish one  single  proof  of  them.  He  might  as 
well  claim  creating  power  in  his  church. 
His  claim  is  as  impudent  as  the  claim  of 
his  prophet,  Joe  Smith,  to  see  money  with 
his  peep-stone — money  that  was  never 
found.  We  showed  that  not  only  does 
Mormonism  pervert  the  one  faith,  God's 
word,  but  it  blasphemously  places  above 
the  faith  as  "The  fullness  of  the  Gospel"  the 
lying  frauds  of  Joe  Smith  and  other  de- 
ceivers and  visionary  fanatics.  We  have 
rung  in  our  opponents  ears  the  demand, 
''What  need  for  new  revelations?  "  Do 
you  say  you  have  a  truth  that  Christ's  per- 
fect Gospel  did  not  give  to  the  world  ?  Dare 
you  say  that  you  express  any  truth  better 
than  he  and  his  apostles  expressed  it?  This 
question  he  dare  not  answer.  It  meets  his 
lying  frauds  at  the  threshold  of  the  temple 
o'f  God,  as  the  angel  with  flaming  sword 
met  sinful  man  at  the  gate  of  Eden. 

We  next  showed  the  false  teachings  of 
his  system  in  regard  to  the  one  baptism. 
After  admitting  that  immersion  in  water 
was  in  the  church,  it  gives  the  lie  direct  to 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  asserts  there  is 
also  in  the  church,  immersion  in  the  Spirit, 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  declares  there  is  in 
the  church  one  immersion,  as  there  is  one 
God,  and  teaches  that  immersion  in  water, 
in  the  name  of  the  Father.  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  unto  the  remission  of  sins  is  the  one 
baptism  that  is  in  the  church.  We  next 
exposed  the  farce  of  baptism  of  the  living 
as  proxies  for  tne  dead,  taught  by  Mormon- 
nism.  We  asked  how  do  the  dead  know 
what  the  living  proxy  lias  done?  How 
does  the  living  proxy  know  whether  the 
dead  has  believed  and  repented.  If  the 
dead  have  believed  and  repented,  will  they 
stay  in  hell,  because  of  the  failure  of  some 
living  person  to  be  baptized  as  proxy  for 
him?  If  the  living  is  baptized  and  the 
dead  does  not  repent,  what  good  in  the 
farcical  blunder?  These  questions  he  lias 
not  noticed. 

We  exposed  the  materialistic,  sen icsualist 
nature  of  the  teachings  of  Mormonism  in 
regard  to  the  Millennium,  and  the  final 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


379 


reward  of  the  righteous.  Rigdon  in  his 
gross  literalizing  of  the  figurative  teaching 
of  the  Bible,  in  regard  to  the  future,  made 
nonsense  out  of  them,  and  taught  the  most 
absurd,  extravagant,  and  gross  materialis- 
tic ideas  of  the  Millenium  and  future  life. 
Sensible  Mormons  hide  there  ideas,  as 
they  do  his  gross  literal  material  teaching 
in  regard  to  God. 

We  next  showed  that  Mormonism  makes 
a  hideous  monster  of  the  one  body.  It  dis- 
cards the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  Mosaism  with  its  Priesthood  and 
ritual  is  abrogated,  and  the  simple  church 
of  Christ  has  taken  its  place.  It  foists  into 
Christianity  the  Mosaic  Priesthood,  when 
Christ's  law  declares  that  the  law  is 
changed,  the  Priesthood  is  changed.  It 
gets  up  a  fiction  called  the  Melchezedek 
Priesthood,  when  the  Bible  teaches  that 
there  were  but  two — Melchezedek  and  an- 
other priest,  Christ.  Only  two.  This 
fiction  of  two  Priesthoods — Aaronic  and 
Melchezedek  in  the  church,  has  no  more 
founadation  than  the  Catholic  seven  sacra- 
ments. It  ends  in  placing  in  the  church 
pretenders  to  all  Spiritual  gifts,  when  the 
Bible  teaches  they  have  accomplished 
their  purpose,  and  ceased.  It  has  presi- 
dents, vice-presidents,  a  presidency, 
twelve  apostles,  several  seventies  of 
apostles,  presidents  of  quorums  of  apostles, 
quorums  of  apostles,  presidents  of  tens,  in 
the  seventies,  councillors,  high  council- 
lors, priests,  and  high  priests,  presidents  of 
stakes,  bishops,  presidents  of  bishops, 
traveling  elders,  organizations  of  elders 
and  bishops,  presidents  and  other  officers 
of  such  organizations,  prophets,  seers, 
evangelists,  revelators,  translators,  patri- 
archs, and  not  even  an  inspired  Mormon 
can  repeat  all  their  lingo.  This  monstrosity 
is  the  true  church  of  God,  like  that  Paul 
addressed  in  Philiippi,  when  he  wrote 
"  Paul  and  Timotheus  to  all  the  Saints, 
Overseers  and  Servants  of  the  church  in 
Philiippi."  As  much  like  it  as  a  Hindoo 
idol  with  a  dozen  heads,  a  hundred  arms, 
and  as  many  feet  as  a  millipede,  is  like  the 
human  body  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of 
God.  We  next  assailed  the  name.  The 
disciples  were  first  called  Christians  at 
Antioch,  by  the  apostles,  a  true  reading 
declares.  Mormons  were  called  Latter  Day 
Saints  at  Kirtland,  by  Rigdon.  The  Holy 
Spirit  called  the  congregations  "  Churches 
of  God,"  "  Churches  of  Christ."  Mormons 
called  their  monstrosity  with  its  officers  as 
numerous  as  the  devils  cast  out  of  the  man 
in  the  tombs  "The  Re-organized  Church 
of  Jesua  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints." 
We  have  exposed  the  Book  of  Mormon.  We 
traced  its  origin  in  Spaulding's  "Manu- 
script Found."  Proved  by  Rigdon  himself 
that  he  took  it  from  the  office,  where  Spaul- 
ding  sent  it  to  be  printed.  That  he  re- 
modelled it  into  a  pretended  revelation 
by  putting  into  it  portions  of  the  Bible 
and  his  own  notions.  We  have  proved 
that  he  gave  it  to  Smith  to  publish  to 
the  world  as  a  pretended  revelation,  dug 
from  the  earth  and  translated  by  his  stolen 


peep-stone.  That  he  was  seen  at  Smith's 
and  was  absent  often  when  engaged  in  this 
work.  That  he  preached  its  ideas  and  pre- 
pared his  congregations,  converts,  and  cer- 
tain preachers  to  receive  it.  That  he  pre- 
dicted its  coming.  That  Pratt  went  from 
him  to  Smith,  and  came  back  to  him.  We 
have  exposed  that  transparent  fraud,  his 
pretended  conversion.  We  have  exposed 
the  Rigdonisms  on  every  page.  We  have 
exposed  its  plagiarisms  from  King  James' 
translations.  Its  absurd  imitation  of  the 
brogue  of  the  translators.  Its  quotations 
of  the  New  Testament,  before  it  was  writ- 
ten. Its  quotations  of  modern  authors 
hundreds  of  years  before  they  lived.  Its 
adaptions  of  modern  events.  Its  anachro- 
nistas  in  speaking  of  modern  things.  Its 
utter  luck  of  one  particle  of  evidence  needed 
to  sustain  an  uninspired  book.  Its  lack  of 
evidence  needed  to  sustain  an  inspired 
book.  Its  flat  contradictions  of  the  Bible 
history,  of  the  Bible  teachings.  Its  scores 
of  self-contradictions  and  blunders.  We 
have  showed  the  contradictions  between 
the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Bible.  Be- 
tween the  Book  of  Mormon  and  the  Inspired 
Translation  of  Joe  Smith.  Between  the 
Inspired  Translation  and  the  Bible.  Be- 
tween the  Inspired  translation  and  the  Book 
of  Doctrines  and  Covenants.  Between  the 
Inspired  Translation  and  Joe  Smith's 
preaching.  Between  the  Inspired  Trans- 
lation in  its  different  parts.  We  have 
proved  that  the  Mormon  God  has  learned 
printer's  art,  composition  and  grammar, 
and  has  revised  himself  from  title  page  to 
finis;  making  seventeen  changes  on  one 
page  and  over  five  thousand  in  the  book, 
and  changes  that  omit  whole  lines  and 
insert  lines  and  entirely  change  the  mean- 
ing. We  have  showed  the  atrocious  out- 
rages on  all  grammar  and  composition  in 
all  Mormon  frauds  called  revelations.  We 
examined  the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cove- 
nants and  exposed  its  displays  of  trickery, 
low  cunning,  avarice  and  selfishness,  its 
meaness,  its  flat  contradictions  of  the  Bible 
in  teachings  and  spirit.  Its  failure  in  pre- 
dictions, its  gross  blunder.  We  exposed 
the  gross  absurd  and  uuscriptural  charac- 
ter of  Smith's  lie  about  the  ordination  of 
himself  and  Cowdery,  by  John  the  Baptist. 
As  this  is  the  corner  stone  of  Mormonism, 
my  opponent  abandoned  all  hope  of  his  sys- 
tem, when  he  dodged  defending  this  lie  of 
Smith.  We  showed  it  contradicted  the 
Bible  in  fourteen  particulars.  We  showed 
that  Joe  lacked  every  evidence  of  a  prophet. 
He  never  uttered  what  must  have  been  a 
revelation.  He  never  prophecied.  He 
never  wrought  a  miracle.  All  such  claims 
are  transparant  frauds.  We  then  examined 
Smith's  antecedents,  we  exposed  the  low, 
dishonest,  lying  character  of  the  family,  its 
career  and  associates.  We  showed  that 
Smith  was  lazy,  a  liar,  a  drunkard,  a  thief. 
That  he  was  noted  for  his  lies,  all  through 
his  career,  and  for  his  tricks,  fraud  and  de- 
ception. In  New  York,  in  Pennsylvania, 
in  Ohio,  in  Missouri,  in  Illinois.  He  began 
witching  for  water,  a  lying  fraud.  Peep- 


380 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


ing  for  lostarticles.  A  lying-  fraud.  Point- 
ing out  buried  treasures.  A  lying  fraud. 
Digging  for  them.  A  lying  fraud.  His 
pretended  fac  simile  of  what  was  on  th3 
plates  was  a  lying  fraud.  So  were  his  pre- 
tended plates.  His  pretended  translation 
of  the  Book  of  Abraham  was  a  lying  fraud, 
h'o  was  his  pretended  translation  of  pre- 
tended plates,  the  Book  of  Mormon.  He  ad- 
mitted that  he  never  had  any  plates.  That 
it  was  all  a  hoax.  The  witnesses  repudiated 
their  testimony.  Mormons  excluded  them 
as  liars  and  criminals  of  the  blackest  dye. 
We  showed  the  innumerable  lies  and  con- 
tradictory stories,  that  Smith  and  all  con- 
nected with  the  fraud,  told,  showing  that 
it  was  a  clumsy  fraud,  gotten  up  by  ignor- 
ant knaves. 

We  exposed  Joe's  lying  tricks  of  casting 
out  devils  in  New  York.  We  showed  that 
all  his  powers  was  a  remarkable  power-  as 
ps3'chologist,  or  mesmerist,  and  that  as 
people  knew  nothing  of  this  power  then, 
they  mistook  it  for  supernatural  power,  as 
ignorant  people  so  mistake  the  same  power 
in  Spiritism.  We  traced  Smith's  career  in 
Kirtland,  and  that  of  Mormon  leaders. 
Their  lies,  frauds,  swindles,  that  ruined 
hundreds  and  compelled  them  to  flee  the 
country  to  escape  the  penitentiary.  We 
exposed  their  career  of  violence,  fraud, 
murder,  assassination,  swearing  and  vil- 
lainy in  Missouri.  We  exposed  their  career 
of  similar  villainy  in  Illinois.  We  proved 
that  Smith  was  a  swindler  and  cheat,  and 
liar  and  villain  wherever  he  lived.  We 
proved  that  nearly  one-third  of  the  leaders 
of  Mormonism  have  abandoned  it,,  and  de- 
nounced it  as  a  fraud.  That  Rigdon,  the 
author,  did  so.  We  proved  that  Joe  Smith 
was  the  author  of  the  revelation  on 
polygamy,  and  that  Mormons  have  no 
more  right  to  reject  that  than  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  We  took  up  the  career  of  Mor- 
monism as  a  religion,  in  Kirtland.  We 
exposed  its  fanaticism,  madness  and  im- 
morality. We  exposed  Smith's  attempts 
at  assassination.  His  frauds  called  speak- 
ing with  tongues.  We  exposed  the  lies, 
tricks  and. deceptions  enacted  to  carry  out 
the  fraud  in  Kirtland.  We  showed  that 
the  Book  of  Commandments  published  in 
Independence,  Missouri,  was  changed,  re- 
vised, and  patched  up  until  the  Book  of 
Doctrines  and  Covenants  is  no  more  like  it 
than  Catholicism  is  like  Apostolic  Chris- 
tianity. These  revelations  were  uttered  by 
Joe  by  inspiration,  published  in  the  "Morn- 
ing and  Evening  Star"  as  revelations. 
Published  as  revelations  in  the  Book  of 
Commandments.  Then  so  re-modelled  in 
the  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  that 
(he  printers  who  set  up  the  first  book  would 
uot  recognize  the  second. 

AVe  charge  Mormonism  with  blasphemy 
and  presumption.  It  claims  to  act  under 
the  infallible  inspiration  of  God,  and  work 
miracles.  Book  of  Doctrines  and  Cove- 
nants. Its  emissaries  are  pledged  by  the 
game  authority  to  work  miracles  when  it 
is  demanded  of  them.  Mormons  profess  to 
have  intercourse  with  angels,  that  they  fre- 


quently see  them  and  have  intercourse  with 
them.  Mormonism  clarms  to  be  the  only 
true  church,  and  that  all  others  will  be 
damned.  Mormonism  taught  that  God 
would  send  down  a  city  from  heaven,  the 
New  Jerusalem,  into  Missouri  and  that  all 
Saints  were  to  gather  there  under  fear  of 
divine  wrath.  Afterward  they  gathered 
under  the  same  pretended  revelation  at 
Nauvoo.  The  prophecies  about  Missouri 
have  all  failed.  Mormonism  places  its  pre- 
tended revelations  above  the  New  Testa- 
ment. That  contained  only  the  Gospel, 
their  frauds  contained  the  "Fullness  of  the 
Gospel."  Mormonism  threatens  all  who 
only  accept  the  Bible  and  reject  it  with 
eternal  damnation.  Mormonism  changes 
the  terms  of  salvation  laid  down  in  God's 
word.  God's  word  teaches  that  if  men 
accept  it  and  live  it  out  in  life  they  will  be 
saved.  Mormonism  teaches  that  they  must 
accept  its  frauds  al^o,  and  even  place  them 
above  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  the  "fullness 
of  the  Gospel."  We  showed  from  the  Book 
of  Doctrines  and  Covenants  that  Mormonism 
is  a  scheme  for  enriching  its  knavish  leaders. 
Mormonism  teaches  resistance  to  evil. 
Smith  did  so  in  his  revelations.  So  does 
the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Mormonism,  like  spiritism  and  the  animal 
excitements  of  negroes,  mistakes  abnormal, 
unhealthy  frenzy  for  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 
It  mistakes  mere  frenzy  and  nervous  mes- 
meric excitement  for  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Such  delusion  has  ever 
led  to  frenzy,  madness,  crime  and  pol- 
lution. It  did  in  Mormon  excitements 
in  Kirtland.  It  did  in  Missouri,  Nauvoo. 
Spiritual  wifery  and  polygamy  are  only  the 
the  inevitable  results  of  such  ideas  of  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  as  Mormonism  teaches. 
Infidelity  works  with  Mormouism  for  two 
reasons.  It  attempts  to  make  out  that 
Mormonism  has  as  much  evidence  as  Chris- 
tianity. If  men  can  be  led  to  believe  this  and 
that  Mormonism  is  the  perfection  of  Christi- 
anity they  will  reject  such  a  hum  bug  as  Mor- 
monism and  rejectChristianity  also.  It  wants 
to  load  Christianity  with  Mormonism  to 
destroy  Christianity.  Again,  when  Mor- 
monism is  exposed  it  betrays  its  infidelity. 
It  assails  Christianity  and  the  infidel  wolf 
recognizes  his  brother  wolf  in  sheep's 
clothing.  No  one  fact  connected  with  this 
debate  has  been  more  apparent  than  that. 
My  opponent's  infidelity  will  stare  the 
reader  of  the  debate  in  the  face  in  nearly 
every  speech. 

The  ease  with  which  this  fraud  has  been 
exposed,  exploded  in  this  debate  will  be  a 
standing  proof  of  the  difference  between  it 
and  Christianity.  No  such  assaults  can  be 
made  on  Christ  or  on  his  teachings.  The 
Bible  is  a  wonderful  part  of  the  world's 
history,  and  has  evidences  that  no  other 
book  has.  It  does  not  stand  out  apart  from 
the  world's  history,  like  Gulliver's  Travels, 
or  the  Book  of  Mormon.  The  discussion 
will  illustrate  the  difference  between  the 
genuine,  the  Bible,  and  the  counterfeit,  the 
Book  of  Mormon.  Mormonism  re-hashes  and 
even  exaggerates  infidel  falsehoods  about 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


381 


the  purity  or  the  text  of  the  Bible.  That 
lias  been  done  in  this  debate.  Any  decent 
infidel  would  denounce  as  an  ignoramus  a 
person  who  would  make  such  chnrges  as 
have  been  made  in  this  debate.  When  the 
vile  character  of  the  prophet  and  leaders 
have  been  exposed,  it  eclipses  Ingersoll  in 
his  infidel  attacks  on  the  character  of  the 
Bible  personages.  Every  unfair  mis-repre- 
sentation and  sneer  of  infidelity  'has  been 
repeated  here.  When  its  pretended  mir- 
acles are  exposed,  it  assails  with  more 
than  infidel  falsehood  those  of  the  Bible. 
That  has  been  done  in  this  debate.  Sneers 
have  been  thrown  out  about  "Jonah  swal- 
lowing the  whale.  "  Yet  this  infidel  system 
is  the  "Fullness  of  the  Gospel."  Its  organ- 
ization is  the  only  true  Church  of  God  now 
on  earth.  Its  infidel  emissaries  have  the 
miraculous  power  of  Spirit, — can  work  mir- 
acles— give  revelations,  and  those  who 
believe  the  Bible,  and  defend  it,  are  apos- 
tates from  the  Bible  ;  because  they  do  not 
accept  the  lying  frauds  of  these  infidels. 
Infidelity  recognizes  its  ally  wherever 
Mormonism  rears  its  head.  There  is  never 
a  debate  with  Mormonism,  that  infidelity 
in  the  place  does  not  hurrah  for  the  Mormon. 
Mormonism  had  its  origin  in  a  scheme  of 
a  backslidden  doubting  preacher,  todeceive 
the  world,  in  pretending  that  he  had  dug  a 
manuscript  from  the  earth  and  translated  it; 
that  he  migfej  get  money  out  of  it.  Some 
think  that  his  stupid  plagiarism  of  Bible 
style  was  in  tended  as  a  deli  berate  caricature 
of  the  Bible,,  This  intended  fraud  was  stolen 
by  a  back-sjidden  sceptical  preacher  who 
blasphemously  plagiarized  the  ideas  and 
language  of  the  Bible  to  re-model  it  into 
a  pretended  revelation,  to  make  a  "  big 
thing  out  of  it."  It  was  given  to  the  world 
by  an  infidel,  an  admirer  of  Paine,  who 
was  duping  the  superstitious  and  ig- 


norant with  pretences  to  witch  for  water, 
peep  for  lost  treasures,  etc.  It  has  displayed 
its  infidelity  and  hostility  to  the  Bible  all 
through  its  course.  If  an  error  of  Mormon- 
ism was  exposed  it  retorted  with  an  infidel 
attack  on  the  Bible.  It  assails  the  Bible 
to  revenge  the  exposure  that  friends  of  the 
Bible  have  made  of  its  fraudulent  charac- 
ter. When  we  point  out  that  it  is  destitute 
of  the  evidence  that  an  inspired  book  should 
have,  it  re-hashes  infidel  falsehoods  that 
the  books  of  the  Bible  are  no  better.  It 
asserts,  in  the  face  of  all  history,  that  the 
Books  of  the  New  Testament  were  composed 
two  or  three  hundred  years  alter  Christ. 

Mormonism isa  hodjr'e- podge  of  Mosaism, 
Mahommedanism,  Methodism,  Episcopa- 
lianism,  Catholicism,  Campbellism,  Rigdon- 
ism,  Smithism  and  Prattism,  Infidelity, 
Mesmeric  Power  and  Devilism.  Infidelity 
was  its  father,  ignorance  and  superstition 
was  its  mother,  and  like  Milton's  whoredom 
of  Satan  and  Sin,  the  monstrous  progeny 
has  been  death. 

All  who  accept  the  Bible  and  believe  that 
the  Scriptures  are  given  by  inspiration,  and 
are  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness, 
and  that  by  the  Scriptures  all  children  of 
God  are  made  perfect,  and  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  all  good  works,  will  reject  this 
monster  Mormonisra.  All  who  accept 
Jesus  as  the  only  Divine  Prophet,  source 
of  all  teaching,  their  only  Divine  King, 
source  of  all  law,  will  reject  the  back- 
slidden, doubting  Solomon  Spaulding,  the 
unpiincipled,  infidel  Sydney  Rigdon,  the 
scoundrelly  infidel  pretender  of  Manchester, 
Joe  Smith,  with  his  stolen  peep-stone.  They 
will  accept  the  one  God,  one  Lord,  one  Spirit, 
one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  hope,  one  body, 
one  name  of  the  religion  of  Christ. 


I  hereby  certify  that  my  speeches  appear  in  this  book  just  as  1  furnished  them  to  the 
printer,  ivithoiit  any  restrictions  whatever.  I  read  all  the  proofs  myself,  and  my  speeches 
are  pi  intcd  just  as \  1  directed,  without  any  chanye  or  t  ash  ivlion. 

CLAEK  BE  AD  EN. 


882 


TIIE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


APPENDICES. 


APPENDIX  A. 

"KIRTLAND,  OHIO,  February  22,  1884. 
"JfAJ.  J.  IT.  GTT.BKKT, 

"Dear  Sir:  Kelley  assailed  your  statement  that  the 
manuscript  of  the  Honk  of  Mormon  lacked  punctu- 
ation— as  it  came  to  yon. 

He  got  a  telegram  from  David  Whitmer,  who  claims 
that  he  has  the  original  manuscript — that  it  is  punctu- 
ated. 

Will  you  please  answer  these  queries: 

I.  As  the  manuscript  was    handed   to   you   was   it 
punctuated?    If  it  was,  to  what  extent? 

II.  Were  the  sentences  commenced  with  capital  let- 
ters.   If  so,  to  what  extent  ? 

III.  Weie  there    mis-spelled    words?     Were  they 
frequent? 

IV.  Did  you  correct  grammatical  blunders  to  any 
extent? 

Please  to  answer  these  queries,  stating  the  facts  in 
each  case.  Return  questions,  and  answers.  You 
can  append  your  statement  to  this.  Do  not  fail  to  do 
this,  as  Kelley  has  read  what  he  wrote  in  "Saint's 
Herald,"  which  is  the  reverse  of  what  you  told  me. 
Answer  as  soon  as  you  can.  "Youis, 

"  CLARK  BRADEN." 


"  PALMYRA,  February  27, 1884. 
"MR.  BRADEN, 
"Dear  Sir:    Answer  to  questions 

I.  "  Not  a  punctuation  maik  of  any  kind  from  be- 
ginning to  end  of  manuscript. 

II.  ''Sentences  were  not  commenced  with  capitals: 
If  they  had  been  there  would  not  have  been  so  much 
difficulty  in  punctuation. 

III.  "The  spelling  was  good.    The  word  "travail" 
occurred  twice  in  one  "form"  and  was  spoiled  "travel" 
in  both  instances,    The  copyist  evidently  not  knowing 
the  meaning  of  the  word;  and  furthermore,  Cowdery 
looked  over  the  manuscript  when  the  proof  was  read. 

IV.  "  We  were  not  allowed  to  correct  any  grammati- 
cal errors. 

"If  Mr.  Whiimer  claims  that  he  has  the  manuscript 
that  I  used  in  setting  up  the  Mormon  Bibl«»,  and  that 
it  is  punctuated  and  the  sentences  begin  with  a  capital, 
I  say  it  has  been  altered  since  it  left  my  hands,  or  that 
he  lias  not  got  the  original. 

"  Mr.  Kelley  mis-repiesented  me  In  every  important 
particular  iu  his  article  published  in  the  "  Saint's 
Herald"  of  Mano,  Illinois.  Jf  Mr.  Kelley  has  to 
resort  to  falsehood  and  mis-representation  to  defend 
Mormnnism,  he  had  better  leave  them  and  become  an 
houebt  man  if  possible.  "  Yours  truly, 

(Signed)    J.  H.  GILBERT." 


APPENDIX   B. 

"STATE  OP  NEW  YORK,) 
Wayne  County.         j  SB< 

"Samuel  J.  Mclntyre  being  duly  sworn,  eays: 
Since  1851,  have  been  an  attorney  and  Counselor  prac- 
tising in  all  the  Courts  of  this  State,  and  in  the  United 
States  Courts.  During  all  my  life  I  have  resided  in 
the  village  of  Palmyra,  in  this  county,  except  from 
August  1*«2  to  September  1865,  when  I  was  in  the  army, 
and  am  fifty-six  years  of  age. 

"  I  have  been  shown  a  letter  of  inquiry  from  Mr. 
Clark  Biaden  of  Kirtland,  Ohio,  and  requested  to 
answer  the  inquiries  therein,  as  to  Thomas  P.  Baldwin 
and  his  holding  the  office  of  Judge  of  Wayne  County  in 
1833.  Was  also  informed  of  the  fact  that  our  County 
Clerk  had  written  to  a  Mr.  Kelley,  that  uo  such  person 
was  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Court. 

"To  properly  understand  the  matter,  and  perhaps 
explain  the  mistakes  that  have  been  made,  let  me  pre- 
face, by  stating  that  since  the  change  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State  in  1816,  which  took  effect  January  1, 
1847,  we  have  but  one  County  Judge,  and  two  "side 
Judges,"  who  are  entitled  "'Justices  of  sessions." 
These  two-side  judges,  are  justices  of  the  peace  elected 
to  the  position  of  Justices  of  sessions.  They  sit  with 
the  County  Judge  in  criminal  trials,  and  form  with 
him  the  Court  of  sessions.  The  County  Judge  is  also 
elected. 


This  constitution  of  184(1,  made  a  radical  change 
In  the  Judiciary  all  over  the  Stale,  and  of  all  Courts. 

"  Before  the  constitution  of  1846,  there  were  appointed 
in  each  County  five  judges  of  County  Courts,  one  of 
Whom  was  designated  as  first  judge  of  the  County, 
who  presided  at  the  Sessions.  The  other  four  sat  with 
him  as  associated  Judges.  The  first  Judge  was  en- 
titled  First  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Courts,  and  the 
others  were  entitled  Judges  of  Wayne  County  Courts. 
Each  of  these  Judges  was  appointed  by  the  Governor, 
and  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  and  held  office  for  five 
years.  This  was  the  order  of  things  at  the  organiza- 
tion of  this  County  in  1823. 

"I  find  by  the  records  in  Wayne  County  Clerk's  office 
which  I  have  examined  and  also  by  the  examination 
of  authentic  histories  of  Wayne  County,  that  in  Febru- 
ary 1830  William  Sisson  was  appointed  'First  Judge  of 
Wayne  County  Courts'  and  that  he  held  the  office  until 
Februaiy  1835  when  he  was  re-appointed;  and  that 
during  the  same  time  Russell  Whipple,  Daniel  Eddy, 
Thomas  P.  Baldwin  and  David  Arne,  jr.,  were  Judges 
of  Wayne  County  Courts  and  acted  as  such  trom  Febru- 
ary 1830  to  February  1835.  The  records  of  the  Courts 
on  file  in  the  Wayne  County  Clerk's  office  at  Lyons, 
New  Tork,  show  them  to  have  acted  as  such  during 
this  time.  On  file  in  said  office  are  the  appointments 
of  these  gentlemen  to  these  offices  under  the  hand  of 
the  Governor  of  the  State  (or  rather  of  Enos  T.  Throop 
who  was  then  acting  Governor)  with  the  Seal  of  the 
State  attached.  Certified  copies  of  these  papers  can 
be  obtained  at  any  time  from  the  Clerk  of  Wayne 
County. 

"Either  of  these  Judges  of  Wayne  County  Courts  had 
the  jurisdiction  to  take  affidavits  and  acknowledge- 
ments. 

"The  Wayne  County  Courts  in  which  these  Jndges 
pat  was  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  for  the  trial  of 
civil  matters  of  small  amount,  and  hearing  argument 
of  appeals  from  judgments  rendered  by  Justices  of  the 
Peace;  and  the  Court  of  Sessions  for  the  trial  of 
criminal  matters  where  the  punishment  was  lowerthan 
imprisonment  for  life;  also  all  five  ofthfse  Judges  sat 
with  the  Circuit  Judge  when  he  held  a  Court  of  Oyer 
and  Terminer  in  the  County  which  is  a  Criminal  Court 
at  whi''h  a  Grand  Jury  sat  and  found  indictments,  and 
the  Oyer  and  Terminer  tried  the  criminal  cases  of  a 
higher  grade  and  all  criminal  cases  that  were  not 
ordered  by  it  to  be  tried  at  the  Sessions. 

"Therefore  the  propriety  of  the  titles  'Judges  of 
Wayne  County  Courts,'  and  not  as  now  simply  'County 
Judge.' 

"Thomas  P.  Baldwin  was  a  lawyer  and  for  a  long 
time  held  the  office  of  Commissioner  of  Deeds  having 
authority  to  take  affidavits  and  acknowledgements. 
In  my  practice  I  have  seen  a  very  large  number  of 
documents  signed  by  him  as  Commissioner  of  Deeds 
and  some  as  'Judge  of  Wayne  County  Courts,'  and  in  all 
cases  l.e  signed  his  name  of  "Th.  P.  Baldwin.'  His 
oaths  of  office  on  file  in  Wayne  County  Clerk's  office 
are  all  so  signed. 

"After  all  this  it  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  say  that 
such  a  man  as  Thomas  P.  Baldwin  lived  and  moved 
and  had  his  being  in  Wayne  county.  Although  young 
myself  at  the  time  spoken  of  I  very  well  recollect  the 
man.  He  was  spoken  of  as  'Judge  Baldwin'  and 'Tom 
Baldwin.'  His  daughter  (now  Mrs.  Breck  of  Gn  enfield, 
Massachusetts,  near  Springfield,  Massachusetts)  was 
here  on  a  visit  but  a  month  ago  to  her  half  brother, 
William  H.  Cuylerof  this  place. 

"Her  father,  Thos.  P.  Baldwin,  married  the  widow 
of  William  Howe  Cuyler  who  had  two  sons,  Geo.  W. 
Cuyler  formerly  President  of  the  First  National  Bank 
of  this  place  who  is  now  dead,  and  Wm.  H.  Cuyler  now 
living  here.  By  this  marriage  there  was  the  child 
Mary  Baldwin,  new  Mrs.  Breck.  The  widow  of  George 
W.  Cuyler  now  lives  in  the  place  where  Judge  Baldwiu 
formerly  lived  in  this  village. 

"The  letter  of  Mr.  Braden  was  handed  to  me  yester- 
day, and  being  very  much  surprised  at  learning  from 
It  that  our  County  Clerk  had  written  a  letter  containing 
such  a  mistake  as  to  the  judgeship  of  Thomas  P. 
Baldwin,  while  on  an  errand  to  Lyons  to-day  I  took 
pains  to  investigate  and  found  that  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Kelley  had  been  turned  over  to  a  young  man  in  the 
office  by  the  name  of  Van  Marten  who  was  utterly 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


883 


Ignorant  of  the  changes  of  our  judiciary  and  judicial 
system  and  knew  of  no  Judges  of  Wayne  County  Courts 
except  the  County  Judge  of  the  present  day  or  since 
1816.  1  asked  him  to  make  a  certificate  of  the  facts 
after  examining  the  records  and  documents  and  sead 
to  me,  and  hope  to  receive  the  same  in  time  to  accom- 
pany this. 

"I  have  made  this  statement  in  a  narrative  form 
rather  than  in  the  strict  form  of  a  deposition  as  I 
thought  it  would  be  more  easily  understood. 

"(Signed)  S.  B.  MclNTYRK. 
"Sworn  to  before  me,  February  27,  1884. 

"(Signed)  T.  W.  COLLINS. 

"Wayne  County  Judge. 

STATE  OF  NEW  YOUK,)  a, 
WAYNE  COUNTY.        j  s" 

''William  H.  Cuyler  of  the  village  of  Palmyra,  New 
York,  being  duly  sworn  says,  I  am  72  years  old,  and 
have  resided  in  this  village  all  my  life.  I  am  the  son 
of  Major  Wm.  Howe  Cuyler  who  was  killed  in  the  war 
Of  181'2. 

"After  my  father's*  death,  my  mother  married  Thomas 
P.  Baldwin  and  by  him  had  one  daughter,  Mary,  now 
Mrs.  Breck  of  Greenfield.  Mass.." 

"  The  wife  of  Joseph  Smith,  the  father  of  the  Mormon, 
nursed  my  mother  at  the  birth  of  Mary  Baldwin.  I  at- 
tended school  with  Joseph  Smith  the  Mormon,  and  his 
brothers — particularly  Alvin  and  William." 

"  Thomas  P.  Baldwin  was  a  lawyer,  held  the  office  of 
Oommissii  ner  of  deeds  for  a  long  time,  arid  was  one  of 
the  judges  of  Wayne  County  Courts  from  1830  10  1835, 
being  appointed  to  the  posi  ion  by  Enos  T.  Throop,  the 
Lieutenant  Governor  of  the  State  then  acting  as  Gov- 
ernor, as  the  Governor  Martin  Van  Buren  resigned  in 
1529,  on  being  appointed  Secretary  of  State  umder  Pres- 
ident Jackson. 

"My  step-father  always  sigmed  his  name  *Th.  P. 
Baldwin'.  He  died  early  in  the  year  1858  at  Greene 
Bay,  Wisconsin  and  was  buried  there.' 

"(Signed)  W.  T.  CUYtKE." 
"  Sworn  to  before  me  February  27th,  1881. 

"  (Signed)  T.  W.  COLLINS. 

"  Wayne  County  Judge." 

LYONS,  NEW  YORK,  February  27th,  1881. 

"I,  J.  M.  Van  Marten.  Sp  cial  Deputy  Clerk  of  Wayne 
County,  New  York,  do  hereby  certify  that  on  or  about 
February  1, 1884,  and  February  7, 188t,  there  were  re- 
ceived at  this  office  two  letters,  which  are  hereto 
attached,  and  in  reply  to  the  inquiry  in  the  first  letter, 
and  to  the  first  enquiry  in  the  second  letter,  I  replied 
substantially  that  no  person  named  Thomas  P.Baldwin 
was  a  judge  of  the  County  Courts  of  Wayne  County, 
New  York  in  1833  or  1834,  and  that  David  Arne,  Jr.,  was 
Wayne  County  Judge.  When  I  made  those  statements 
I  supposed  the  office  of  County  Judge  was  always  the 
same.in  title  and  jurisdiction,  as  it  is  at  present,t.e.,one 
County  Judge  and  two  side  judges,  called  Justices  of 
Sessions. 

"But  I  find  upon  Investigation  that  prior  to  184fi,  at 
which  time  the  new  State  Constitution  went  into  effect, 
there  was  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  confirmed  by 
the  Senate  one  person  with  the  title  of  First  Judge  of 
the  County,  and  four  others  'Associate  Judges,'  who 
were  each  called  "  Judge  of  Wayne  County  Courts."  I 
find  by  the  records  of  this  office  that  Thomas  P.  Bald- 
win of  Palmyra  and  David  Eddy  of  Marion,  were  on 
the  10th  day  of  February,  1830.  duly  appointed  by  the 
Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York  and  confirmed  by 
the  Senate  "Judges  of  the  County  Courts  of  the  County 
of  Wayne."  Their  commission  is  on  file  in  this  office, 
and  it  now  lies  before  me.  It  was  filed  February  15th, 
1830.  I  also  find  by  the  records  of  this  office  that  the 
said  Thomas  P.  Baldwin  sat  and  acted  as  such  Judge 
of  W«yne  County  Courts  during  the  years  1830,  1831, 
1832,  1833  and  1834,  the  first  Court  at  which  he  acted 
commencing  June  14,  1830,  and  the  last  Court,  Septem- 
ber  8,  1834.  I  also  find  that  prior  to  1830  and  after  1834 
he  was  a  Commissioner  of  Deeds  in  the  town  of  Palmyra, 
in  this  County,  and  find  his  signature  as  such  to  a 
number  of  documents.  In  each  case  his  signature  is 
writtenthus:  "Th.  P.  Baldwin." 

"  He  was  a  practising  attorney  at  the  time  of  the  or- 
gani?ation  of  this  County  in  18.23,  as  I  find  by  the  list  of 
attorneys  and  their  signatures  on  file  in  this  office  of 
that  date.  I  also  certify  that  David  Arne,  Jr.  was  for  a 
long  time  an  associate  Judge  of  the  same  rank  and  title 
as  said  Baldwin  and  acted  as  such  Judge  at  the  same 
time  with  Baldwin  I  further  find  by  the  records  of 
this  office  that  William  Sisson  was  the  first  Judge  of  the 
Courts  of  Wayne  County  from  January,  1830,  to  Feb. 
ruary,  1836.  When  he  was  re-appointed  as  such  judge. 
During  that  time  the  following  were  associate  Judges, 
having  the  title  of  Judges  of  Courts  of  Wayne  County, 


viz:  Thomas  P.  Baldwin.  Daniel  Eddy,  Russell  Whip- 
pie,  and  D«vid  Arne,  Jr.  And  I  will  al>o  add  that  at 
that  time  the  oath  of  office  was  not  always  adminis- 
tered by  the  County  rierk. 

"(Signed)  M.  J.  VAN  MARTEN, 

"Special  Deputy  Clerk." 

APPENDIX  C. 

Evidence  taken  in  open  Court  before 
S.  C.  Carpenter,  Esq.,  justice  of  the  peace 
in  and  for  the  township  of  Kirtland,  Lake 
county,  Ohio,  Lorenzo  Fay,  reporter.  Taken 
on  the  8th  day  of  March,  1884,  upon  the 
matter  of  the  faith  and  practices  of  the 
Re-organized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints,  and  the  reputation  and 
moral  character  of  certain  of  the  promi- 
nent men  of  the  church  as  existing  in  Kirt- 
land, Ohio,  and  elsewhere,  between  the 
years  of  1830  and  1844,  by  mutual  agreement. 
PRESENT  : 

Elder  Clark  Braden,  representing  the 
Disciple  Church. 

Elder  E.  L.  Kelley,  representing  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints. 

J.  J.  Moss  being  produced,  first  being 
duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows  : 

EXAMINED  BY  MR.  BRADEN. 

Q.  Mr.  Moss  may  state  the  time  when  he 
was  teaching  school  here  and  the  appear- 
ance of  three  Mormon  preachers  here,  his 
attending  meetings.  What  the  facts  are? 
A.  I  commenced  teaching  school  in  Kirt- 
land, in  the  old  red  school  house,  just  across 
the  bridge  that  goes  from  the  post-office  on 
the  road  to  Chardon  on  the  right  hand  side, 
in  the  fall  of  1830.  The  week  that  I  com- 
menced my  school  three  Mormon  preachers 
came  from  York  State.  If  any  one  can  tell 
me  the  time  of  the  month  I  can  get  at  the 
time.  Two  of  these  preachers  I  recollect, 
the  other  I  do  not.  Parley  Pratt  and  Oliver 
Cowdery  I  recollect.  In  the  course  of  the 
winter  I  attended  their  meetings.  The 
things  that  were  stated  last  night  in  refer- 
ence to  the  things  that  took  place  here  are 
correct.  On  the  side  hill  across  the  flat, 
east  of  the  present  mill  at  night,  Black 
Pete  and  two  white  men  went  from  a  meet- 
ing in  a  log  house  on  the  flat  and  got  up  on 
to  stumps,  and  were  preaching  to  imaginary 
audiences. 

John  Taueur  and  myself  were  at  the  foot 
of  the  hill.  John  Taneur  came  from  the 
State  of  New  York  with  me,  and  when  I 
took  a  school  at  the  flats  he  took  a  school  in 
the  Newell  district.  He  put  his  hands  to 
his  mouth  and  made  an  awful  screech,  when 
they  all  jumped  from  the  stumps.  The  two 
white  men  ran  angling  down  the  hill,  and 
black  Pete  ran  straight  down  on  the  snow 
and  ice,  crying  out,  "Here  we  go,  here  we 
go."  His  feet  slipped  from  under  him,  and 
as  his  seat  struck  the  ground  he  sang  out, 
"Oh  God,  here  we  go."  He  went  back  into 
the  house,  and  they  had  some  tomahawk- 
ing, scalping  and  ripping  up  the  bowels, 
and  Indian  talk  ;  and  that  was  the  scene 
that  night.  I  saw  Black  Pete  in  the  orchard 
on  the  left  hand  side  of  the  road  from  the 
post-office  as  you  go  to  Mentor,  or  where  the 


884 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


road  now  goes  to  Painesville,  There  was 
but  one  house  on  that  corner  then  ;  the 
orchard  was  just  back  of  that  house.  Black 
Pete  chased  the  Devil  sometimes,  and  some- 
time^ the  Devil  was  chasing  him  around 
the  stumps  and  apple  trees.  That  I  saw. 
I  was  called  out  of  my  school  in  to  theshoe- 
maker's  shop  of  Mr.  Cahoon — I  do  not 
remember  his  first  name — right  by  the  side 
of  wy  school  house.  I  left  my  school  in 
charge  of  one  of  my  largest  scholars,  went 
out  after  he  called.  I  found  his  eldest  son, 
I  do  not  remember  his  first  name,  fighting 
with  the  Devil.  I  seems  when  I  got  in  he 
had  got  a  little  the  advantage  of  the  Devil, 
and  had  him  under,  but  still  the  Devil  was 
trying  to  steal  a  march  on  him.  He  acted 
like  a  crazy  man  as  much  as  anything  else, 
and  would  say,  "there  you  come;  I  see 
you,"  And  when  the  Devil  got  pretty  close 
to  him  he  would  jab  bis  fingers  at  him  and 
say,  "Zick !  Zick!"  I  went  to  my  school 
room  and  called  in  eight  or  ten  ot  my  larg- 
est scholars,  some  young  men  and  some 
young  women,  to  witness  the  scene.  He 
got  the  Devil  at  last  in  the  corner  where 
there  was  someold  boots  and  shoes,  jabbing 
his  fingers  at  him — "Zick  !  Zick  !"  I  slipped 
behind  the  scholars  and  got  my  foot  behind 
an  old  shoe,  and  when  the  Devil  was  com- 
ing again  I  suddenly  shoved  it  before  him. 
He  jumped  about  two  feet  high  and  ran 
down  stairs  out  into  the  field,  just  back  of 
the  school  house,  and  there  was  quite  a 
number  of  stumps,  and  the  Devil  was  after 
him  ;  he  dodged  first  around  one  stump  aud 
then  another. 

I  believe  I  was  the  first  person,  with  a 
young  man,  whose  name  I  have  forgotten, 
who  was  present  when  they  took  what 
was  cilled  the  sacrament  up  at  the  Morley 
house.  They  were  in  the  habit  of  turning 
every  body  out  of  the  door  when  they  par- 
took of  the  bread  and  wine,  putting  blankets 
up  at  the  windows,  shutting  off  the  sight 
from  without.  They  started  a  regular 
pow-wow,  and  when  they  got  well  going, 
then  they  opened  the  door  and  let  us  all 
come  in  again.  A  young  man  and  myself 
made  it  up  that  we  would  stay  in  unless 
they  took  us  out  by  force.  The  young  man 
got  asleep,  and  I  had  a  dumb  evil  and 
could  not  talk;  but  they  did  not  carry  us 
out  but  went  on  with  the  sacrament.  The 
poor-house  in  Portage  County,  Ohio,  where 
there  were  half  a  dozen  insane  and  idiotic 
persons,  was  the  best  comparison  of  any- 
thing to  the  scene  that  night.  And  if  I  had 
had  my  cloak  on  I  would  have  stolen  the 
wine  and  carried  it  home  to  see  whether  it 
was  drugged  or  not. 

By  Mr.  Kelley  :  Q.  I  would  like  to  know 
•whether  those  three  preachers,  including 
Oliver  Cowdery,  were  at  the  pow-wow  ? 
A.  I  do  not  think  they  were.  I  told  them 
in  the  public  meetings  and  on  the  street, 
that  that  was  from  the  Devil,  the  Spirit  of 
God  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Some  time 
after  they  got  a  revelation  from  Joseph 
Smith,  and  he  said  such  conduct  was  from 
the  Devil,  and  then  they  quit  their  per- 
formances. They  believed  him  but  they 


would  not  believe  me.  They  held  meetings 
at  the  Morley  Farm  a  good  deal,  and  they 
used  to  invite  people  that  came  from  abroad 
to  stay  all  night,  and  it  so  happened  by  ac- 
cident or  some  other  cause,  that  all  that 
stayed  overnight  were  immersed  by  the 
Mormons  before  noon  the  next  day,  and 
after  awhile  they  got  to  inviting  some  of 
the  citi/.ens  of  the  vicinity  to  stay  all  night. 
Home  of  them  I  knew  were  bitterly  opposed 
the  day  before,  and  they  were  immersed 
before  noon.  I  made  up'my  mind  I  wanted 
to  stay  all  night.  I  asked  some  people  who 
lived  in  the  neighborhood  how  it  happened 
"you  did  not  believe  in  Mormonism  yester- 
day and  to-day  you  are  a  Mormon  ?"  They 
said  "Oh!  If  you  had  seen  what  I  have 
seen,  and  heard  what  I  have  heard,  you 
would  believe  as  well  as  I."  "  What  have 
you  seen  aud  heard?"  "I  can't  tell."  I 
then  began  to  wear  a  lontf  facie,  stopped 
arguing  against  the  Mormons  either  on  the 
street  or  in  their  meetings.  So  I  got  an  in- 
vitation to  stay  all  night,  and  that  was 
what  I  was  after.  They  came  to  me  at  the 
close  of  the  meeting  aud  said  that  there 
were  so  many  that  had  come  from  abroad, 
and  asked  me  if  I  would  not  wait  till  the 
next  night.  Before  the  third  night  came, 
Matthew  Clapp,  of  Mentor,  came  all  the 
way  from  there  to  see  if  he  could  not  save 
me  from  Mormonism,  and  he  cried  over  me 
and  shed  tears  till  he  wrought  upon  my 
feelings  and  I  told  him  what  I  was  at,  but 
I  enjoined  it  upon  him  to  keep  it  to  himself 
until  I  got  to  stay  there  all  night ;  but  he 
told  it,  and  before  the  third  night  came  it 
got  out ;  and  I  did  not  get  a  chance  to  stay 
there  another  night.  And  it  was  found  out 
why  1  was  wearing  my  long  face,  and  that 
what  I  wanted  to  stay  there  for  was  to  see 
if  they  had  got  angels  there  that  appeared 
in  the  night  that  caused  everyone  that  the 
angels  appeared  to  go  to  the  water  the  next 
day. 

I  stated  that  T  had  studied  the  black  art, 
and  leger-de-main  once,  and  I  knew  just  how 
those  things  were  done.  I  can  appear  to 
you  in  a  dark  room  or  on  a  dark  night  as  a 
living  pillar  of  fire.  That  got  noised  all 
over  the  country,  and  that  was  the  last  of 
their  inviting  anybody  to  stay  over  night. 
The  angel  that  held  the  lamp  to  baptize  I 
did  not  see.  I  heard  of  it  when  I  came  to 
my  school  in  the  morning. 

There  is  one  thing  more  that  I  will  state 
and  then  I  think  I  am  done  with  every- 
thing that  is  personal.  In  one  of  these 
meetings  there  was  a  young  married  woman 
that  I  was  perfectly  satisfied  was  making 
her  own  calculation  to  get  the  power  and 
fall  into  my  lap.  I  watched  for  it,  aud  was 
looking  for  it  and  finally  it  came,  and  she 
came  down  with  the  power  right  into  my 
lap,  but  she  got  up  quicker  than  she  came 
down.  I  guess  the  Mormons  never  knew 
how  she  got  up  so  quick. 

CROSS-EXAMINED   BY  MB.  KELLEY: 

Question.  Who  was  it  fell  in  your  lap? 
Answer.  I  could  not  give  the  name  now. 

Q.  When  did  you  say  that  was?  A.  It 
was  in  the  winter  of  1830-31. 


THE  BRADEX  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


385 


Q.  Who  was  present  at  the  time  the  lady 
fell  into  your  lap?  A.  I  could  not  tell 
that. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  Morley's  first  name? 
A.  I  can  not  tell  that. 

Q.  Who  did  you  tell  that  you  supposed 
they  had  angels  there?  A.  I  told  a  good 
many  people;  I  told  Mr.  Riggs  who  kept 
the  hotel,  and  Squire  Moss  and  Mr.  Jones, 
who  lived  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  on  therokd 
that  goes  to  Chardon,  and  Mr.  Howe  that 
lived  opposite  the  school-house,  and  b*B 
wife. 

Q,  Why  did  you  tell  them  that  they 
kept  angels  there?  A.  Because  I  got  that 
into  my  head. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  they  had  angftls 
there?  A.  I  did  not  say  I  knew  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  they  kept  angels 
for  then  ?  A.  I  'did  not  tell  them  it  was 
so. 

Q.  Who  was  It  that  Invited  you  to  stay 
there  the  first  night?  A.  I  cannot  tell  that 
now.  It  is  fifty-three  years  ago. 

Q.  Was  this  before  or  after  Mr.  Morley 
united  with  the  church?    A.  The  Mormon 
church  you  mean,  I  suppose? 
Q.  Yes,  sir.    A.  It  was  after. 
Q.  What  citizens  do  you  know,  who  staid 
over  night    and  were*  baptized    the    next 
day?    A.  I  do  not  remember  any  of  their 
names  now. 

Q,.  Can't  you  give  one?  A.  No. 
Q.  How  do  you  know  it  was  the  first 
time  they  staid  over  night?  A.  I  did  not 
say  it  was  the  first  time  they  staid  all 
night.  I  said  they  were  invited  to  stay 
over  night. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  but  that  they  had 
been  to  the  preaching  a  number  of  times 
before  that?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  did  you  think  staying  over  all 
night,  had  anything  to  do  with  it?  A.  Be- 
cause they  that  stayed  over  all  night,  most 
all  joined. 

Q.  What  were  the  namea  of  some  that 
were  baptized  ?  A.  I  cannot  give  you  the 
names. 

.  Q.  You  say  that  a  short  time  after  that 
Mr.  Smith  received  a  revelation  thatit  was 
all  from  the  Devil  A.  Yes,  sir,  that  was  in 
the  year  1830-1831. 

And  after  they  got  that  revelation  there 
was  no  more  scenes  of  that  kind.  A.  No, 
sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  here?  A,  Five 
months. 

Q.  And  that  time  was  the  time  that  they 
received  a  revelation  of  Joseph  Smith  ?  A. 
Yes,  sir,  they  got  that  revelation  at  the  time 
I  was  teaching  school  here.  That  was  not 
the  revelation  I  took  out  of  Martin  Harris's 
hat. 

Q.  How  long  before  had  the  members  you 
spoke  of  being  in  those  conditions  been 
members  of  some  church?  A.  That  I  could 
not  tell  you. 

Q.  Was  the  Morley  family  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  church  that  joined  the 
Saints  ?  A.  I  did  not  know  how  many  taere 
\v«ie. 


Q.  Did  not  they  have  that  same  falling 
down  before  the  preachers  came.  When 
they  belonged  under  the  Disciple  faith?  A. 
I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  How  long  before  this  had  they  been 
members  of  the  Disciple  church?  A.  I  do 
not  know  how  long  they  had  been  members  ; 
they  were  members  when  I  came  here,  all 
of  them. 

Q.  Was  there  any  of  our  ministers  around 
or  about  here  when  the  Cahoon  boy  was 
acting  as  he  was?  A.  No,  sir,  I  think 
Cahoon  had  been  ordained  to  some  office  in 
the  church  ;  I  am  pretty  sure  he  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  of  our  preach- 
ers endorse  such  actions  as  that  as  being 
according  to  our  faith?  A.  I  do  not  know 
as  I  did?  they  were  about  here  and  knew 
as  it  was  going  on. 

Q.  Which  ones  were  about  here?  A. 
Why,  all  three  of  them  that  came  from 
York  State.  They  were  preaching  around 
the  country  and  were  here  occasionally 
when  the  things  were  going  on. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  it  when  the 
sacrament  meeting  took  place?  A.  It  was  at 
night. 

Q.  How  did  they  partake  of  the  sacra- 
ment at  the  meeting?  A.  Passed  bread  and 
wine  just  as  other  folks  do. 

Q.  How  did  they  pass  it?  A.  They  passed* 
it  to  the  different  members. 

Q.  Who  passed  it?  A.  I  do  not  know 
whether  they  were  called  deacons  or  what 
kind  of  officers. 

Q.  What  did  they  do  previous  to  passing 
this?  A.  They  gave  thanks  once  or  twice, 
and  then  they  gave  it  to  the  members,  and 
passed  it  around  similar  to  the  Disciples. 
I  have  no  recollection,  but  it  was  the  same 
as  I  have  seen  it,  and  if  I  had  my  cloak  on  I 
would  have  carried  off  the  wine. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  would  have  been 
right?  A.  Yes.  That  would  have  been 
just  as  proper  as  to  carry  oft'  the  revelation. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  is  the  law  of 
the  church  that  they  cannot  use  any  wine 
except  it  is  new  wine?  A.  I  do  not  know 
anything  about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  not  know  that  they  could  not 
cast  people  out  of  the  Sacrament?  A.  I 
know  they  did.  I  have  seen  them  put 
people  out. 

Q.  What  did  they  doit  for.  Because  they 
were  making  a  noise?  A.  I  do  not  know  ! 
may  be  you  can  tell. 

Q,.  Did  you  not  hear  me  read  out  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  that  they  should  not  cast 
any  one  out  of  their  sacrament  meetings? 
A.  I  did  not  know  what  you  read.  I  know 
what  they  did  there. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  any  of  our  minis- 
ters that  were  there?  A.  No  sir.  I  did 
not  know  any. 

Q.  Now  that  girl  that  dropped  In  your 
lap.  Had  she  been  a  member  of  the  Dis- 
ciple church?  A.  She  was  not  a  girl,  sh» 
was  a  young  married  woman. 

Q.  You  can   remember  how  she  lo*"       ^  • 
but  cannot  remember  whethershe  v 
a  member  of  your  church?    A.  N 


THE  BKADEJN   AND  KEI/LEY  DEBATE. 


O.  How  long:  did  you  know  her?  A. 
Well  I  think  I  had  known  her  four  or  five 
•weeks  at  the  meeting's.  I  think  I  knew 
her  only  at  the  meetings. 

Q,.  Who  was  presiding  at  the  meeting  at 
the  time  the  woman  fell  into  your  lap?  A. 
Idonot  know  who  was  presiding  at  the  time. 

Q.  What  made  her  get  up  so  quick  when 
Bhe  fell?  A.  That  is  my  business. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  hear  Parley  Pratt 
and  Oliver  Cowdery  preach  Mr.  Moss?  A. 
That  I  could  not  tell. 

Q  Did  you  hear  them  a  number  of  times? 
A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  Did  these  preachers  endorse  any  such 
actions  that  you  say  were  practiced  from 
time  to  time  while  they  were  about  here? 
And  did  they  endorse  any  such  actions  to 
you?  A.  No  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  teach  any  such  principles? 
A.  They  said  it  was  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Q.  Then  they  did  endorse  those  actions, 
and  they  told  you  those  actions  were  the 
Holy  Ghost?  A.  If  endorse  and  declare 
are  the  same,  and  if  actions  are  the  HoJy 
Spirit,  then  they'endorsed  it. 

Q,.  When  was  that?  A.  I  could  not  tell 
you. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  of  those  preachers 
declare  that  the  falling  down  performances 
in  the  meeting  was  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit?  A.  Cahoon  said  so  in  the 
Bhoe  shop. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  them  after  that  revela- 
tion came,  preach  against  the  falling  down 
power?  A.  I  heard  the  officers  speak 
against  it  in  private. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  their  revelation?  A. 
What  revelation  ? 

Q,.  The  one  Joseph  Smith  gave  in  regard 
to  the  falling  down  power?  A.  No  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  identify  that  revelation  if  you 
heard  what  was  in  it?  A.  I  never  heard  it 
but  they  said  they  had  got  a  revelation  that 
the  falfdown  power  was  of  the  devil. 

Q.  Was  all  this  transaction  denounced  as 
from  the  devil?  A.  That  is  what  they  said. 

Q.  You  understand  that?  A.  I  did  at 
the  time. 

Q,.  Why  have  you  been  telling  it  then  as 
the  practice  of  the  church  now  ?  A.  I  did 
not  do  it. 

Q,.  Why  did  you  bring  it  into  this  con- 
troversy? A.  I  did  not  bring  it  into  con- 
troversy, I  was  only  telling  what  happened 
that  year. 

Q,.  It  is  just  something  that  occurred  by 
members  that  came  out  of  the  Disciple 
Church?  A.  Some  of  them  were  Disciples 
and  some  of  them  were  Methodists. 

Q.  Was  he  a  member  of  the  Church?  I 
mean  Black  Pete.  A.  He  attended  their 
meetings. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  partake  of  the  sacra- 
ment? A.  I  think  I  did.  I  could  not  swear  to 
that  positively. 

Q,.  How  old  was  Black  Pele?  A.  He  was 
about  20  to  25  somewhere.  He  was  the  one 
that  was  on  the  stump. 

Q,  What  other  preachers  did  you  say 
were  on  the  stump  ?  A.  I  do  no  know  their 
names. 


Q.  Was  it  either  Pratt  or  Cowdery?  A. 
It  was  neither. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  Preaching. 

Q.  In  what  Church  or  Society  ?  A.  The 
Disciples  or  Christians. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  here  after  you  left  in 
the  early  part  of  1831?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When?  A.  I  cannot  tell  the  time  it 
was;  after  the  temple  was  finished.. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  meet  any  of  (\ir  preach- 
ers after  the  year  1831  ?  A.  Yes,  sir.  I 
have  had  more  debates  with  them  than  I 
have  fingers  and  toes. 

Q.  Who  did  you  debate  with?  A.I  can- 
not give  the  names.  I  debated  with  one  in 
Akron,  N.  Y.,  and  one  in  Cincinnati. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  debate  with  them? 
A.  Sometimes  longer,  sometimes  shorter. 

Q,.  Were  they  public  debates?  A.  Yes, 
sir,  public  debates  of  course,  but  I  do  not 
remember  the  length  of  time. 

Q,.  Can  you  not  remember  a  single  one? 
A.  I  cannot  remember  one  man. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Joseph  Smith  when  he 
was  here?  A.  I  never  saw  him  but  once. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  anything  bad  about 
him.  A.  No,  sir. 

Q,.  Know  anything  about  Parly  Pratt 
bad?  A.  No,  sir. 

RE-DIRECT   EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  BRADEN : 

Q,.  Did  the  Disciples  ever  to  your  know- 
ledge, in  any  meeting,  allow  such  things  as 
you  witnessed?  A.  No,  sir. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  KELLEY: 

Q.  When  were  you  in  a  Mormon  meeting? 
A.  The  first  time  was  in  the  Fall  of  1830,  I 
am  sure.  I  cannot  tell  the  last  time. 

Q,,  Did  they  call  themselves  Mormons? 
A.  I  thing  they  did. 

Q.  Are  you  as  positive  of  that  as  you  are 
of  any  other  statement  you  made?  A.  I 
will  answer  it  emphatically  that  I  am  just 
as  positive  of  that  as  I  am  of  anything  that 
I  have  said  to-day,  that  they  called  them- 
selves Mormons.  I  think  I  could  go  to 
Pittsfield,  Ills.,  and  bring  members  of  the 
Mormon  Church,  that  they  will  testify  that 
they  called  themselves  'Mormons  in  my 
presence. 

Q.  What  else  did  they  call  themselves  at 
that  time?  A.  I  have  no  recollection  of 
anything  but  Latter  Day  Saints. 

Q,.  Did  they  call  themselves  Latter  Day 
Saints  at  that  time?  A.  I  think  they  did. 

Q!  Are  you  positive  of  that?  A.  No,  I 
am  not  positive  of  that. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  that  they  called  the 
Church  the  Mormon  Church  then?  A.  I 
am  positive  that  I  never  heard  them  call  it 
the  re-organized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter  Day  Saints  until  I  heard  it  at  this 
debate.  That  was  the  first. 

Q.  Now  I  will  ask  you  if  you  were  ever 
with  those  persons  while  they  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Disciple  Church,  and  do  you  say 
you  never  saw  them  get  into  any  of  those 
freaks  at  the  Christian  Church  at  any  time? 
A.  No  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  In  the  Christian 
Church  with  them?  A.  No  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  know  what  they  did 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE, 


887 


\vhile  they  were  Christians?  A.  You  warn 
to  know  whether  I  had  any  association 
with  them  before  I  knew  them  as  Mormons, 
J  answer,  no.  Those  persons  united  with 
the  Mormon  Church  so  soon  after  I  came 
here  that  I  had  no  association  with  them 
at  all. 

Q,.  Elder  Moss,  do  you  know  how  those 
parties  acted  while  members  of  ihe  Chris- 
tian Church?  A.  How  many  times  do  you 
•want  it  answered. 

By  the  Court:     Yes,  answer  it. 

A.  I  had  no  association  with  them  before 
they  were  Mormons. 

Q,.  You  did  not  know  then  but  what  they 
acted  in  the  same  manner  of  falling  down 
and  receiving  the  power  before  they  came 
into  what  they  termed  the  Saint's  Church. 
A.  I  have  answered  it  three  times. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  but  what  they  had 
acted  that  way  ;  do  you,  or  do  you  not.  A. 
I  have  answered  that  question  three  times. 
I  had  no  association  with  them  at  all  before 
they  were  Mormons. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  the  Devil  was 
present  when  that  fellow  said  "  Zick?  "  A. 
I  don't  know  as  I  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  say  it  was  all  of  the 
Hevil  then,  for?  A.  Because  it  was  all 
Devilish  things. 

Q.  Afterwards  a  revelation  came  to  you 
that  it  was  of  the  Devil?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

BE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MB.  BRADEN  : 

Q.  You  may  state  Mr.  Moss,  what  Mar- 
tin Harris  said  to  you  about  seeing  the 
Devil?  A.  He  said  he  saw  the  Devil  and 
he  looked  like  a  jackass,  and  he  had  hair 
like  a  mouse.  I  was  present,  there  were 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  persons  present. 
It  was  in  that  brick  house  down  on  the 
flats. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   KELLEY  : 

Q.  When  was  that?    A.  I  could  not  tell. 

Q,.  Who  was  there?  A.  Some  of  them 
were  people  of  the  world,  and  some  of 
them  were  Disciples. 

Q.  You  had  an  argument,  did  you  not? 
A.  Well,  the  general  conversation  was  of 
the  Latter  Lay  Saints  or  Mormons,  and 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  a  new  revel- 
ation. 

Q,.  Did  he  claim  tnat  the  general  form  of 
the  Devil  was  like'a  jackass?  A.  I  did  not 
ask  him  that  question.  I  did  not  hear  him 
say. 

Q.  How  did  he  come  to  state  that?  A. 
I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Was  that  in  December  or  in  the 
Spring  of  1831  ?  A.  It  was  the  first  visit  he 
make  here,  it  was  the  winter  of  1830-31. 

Q.  What  was  it  that  brought  the  expres- 
sion out?  A.  I  don't  know. 

Q,.  Did  Martin  Harris  give  that  as  a  part 
of  his  faith,  or  was  it  a  joke.  Was  he 
giving  it  as  a  joke?  A.  I  do  not  think  he 
was. 

Q,.  He  was  giving  his  experience  the 
reason  he  came  to  speak  of  it?  A.  That 
was  what  called  it  out,  the  general  conver- 


sation in  reference  to  the  truth  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  and  revelations,  and  as  an 
evidence  that  he  had  revelations,  he  stated 
that  the  Devil  appeared  to  him. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Moss  did  you  hear  Martin 
state  that  he  had  received  revelations  from 
the  Lord,  or  make  such  a  claim,  or  receive 
personal  revelations  from  the  Lord?  A.  He 
said  he  saw  the  Devilj  he  was  giving  us  as 
an  evidence  of  revelation  or  vision  that  he 
had  seen  the  Devil. 

Q.  Were  not  the  people  running  on  him? 
A.  I  do  not  think  they  were,  it  was  one  of 
his  revelations  that  the  Lord  had  revealed 
to  him. 

Q.  Did  people  laugh  at  him?  A.  I  do 
not  think  there  was  any  laughing,  I  do  not 
remember.  There  may  have  been  some 
laughing  at  one  side.  There  was  no  laugh- 
ing out  loud.  I  am  sure.  But  I  smiled 
some  out  of  one  corner  of  my  mouth. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Martin  Harris 
preach  ?  A.  No  sir,  I  have  heard  him  talk 
sometimes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Sydney  Rigdon 
preach  ?  A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  Parly  Pratt 
preach?  A.  Yes  sir. 

Q,.  Did  you  suspect  they  were  into  some- 
thing they  ought  not  to  be  in?  A  No,  sir. 

By  the  Court : 

Q.  Did  Martin  Harris  carry  that  idea  as 
a  fact  that  the  Devil  was  always  in  such  a 
form  as  a  jackass?  A.  I  had  no  thought 
at  the  time  that  Martin  Harris  told  that 
story  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  jackass 
was  the  real  form  of  his  Satanic  Majesty. 

BY  MR.  KELLEY: 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  exact  language  that 
Martin  Harris  used?  A.  I  do.  The  lan- 
guage was  that  he  looked  like  a  jackass. 

Q.  The  idea  from  what  he  said  did  you 
take  it  that  the  Devil  himself  in  his  own 
region,  in  his  own  place,  lived  like  a  jack- 
ass? A.  I  did  not  get  any  such  idea  as  that ; 
that  was  the  form  in  which  he  appeared  to 
him. 

RE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.   BRADEN: 

Q.  Who  immersed  you,  Mr.  Moss?  A. 
Sydney  Rigdon,  September,  1829. 

RE-CROSS  EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    KELLEY  : 

Q.  At  that  time  did  you  suspect  that  he 
was  into  anything  he  ought  not  to  be?  A. 
No,  sir. 

(Signed :)  J.  J.  Moss. 

STATE  OF  OHIO,  > 
Lake  County,     f88' 

Subscribed  in  my  presence  and  sworn  to 
before  me  this  13th  day  of  March,  A.  D. 
1884,  at  Willoughby  in  said  county. 

(Signed:)  J.  C.  WARD  [SEAL.] 

Notary  Public. 

William  Smith,  being  produced  and  first 
being  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

EXAMINED  BY  MR.  BRADEN  : 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  will  you  please  state  hoTf 
you  came  by  that  pike?  A.  Mr.  duff  gava 
it  to  me. 


888 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Q.  What  was  he  religiously?  A.  He  was 
a  Mormon. 

Q.  State  the  facts  about  the  pike  and  how 
you  came  by  it?  A.  Mr.  Cluff  wasaneigh- 
'  bor  of  mine,  and  we  exchanged  work.  I 
called  on  him  for  settlement,  and  discovered 
the  pike  In  a  corner  by  the  door.  I  asked 
him  what  that  was  for.  He  said  about  the 
time  the  Methodist  meeting  house  was 
burned  we  were  afraid  of  being  mobbed, 
and  we  armed  ourselves  for  self-defense. 
I  said  if  I  had  it  I  would  make  a  reamer 
out  of  it,  and  when  he  left  he  gave  it  to  me. 

Q,.  You  may  state  next,  Mr.  Smith,  whether 
you  attended  the  meetings  of  the  Saints 
during  the  winter  of  1830-31,  and  what  you 
saw?  A.  I  have  attended  the  meetings  at 
Mr.  Morley's,  I  think  the  given  name  is 
Isaac.  The  buildings  were  upon  a  little 
flat,  and  if  my  memory  serves  me,  when 
the  people  began  to  come  there  they  put 
up  a  log  cabin  or  small  addition  to  the  house 
part.  I  am  sure  I  have  attended  those 
meetings,  and  my  first  attendance  was 
when  it  began  to  be  generally  noised  around 
that  there  was  strange  things  done,  and 
we  young  folks  were  curious  to  see  what  it 
was. 

Q.  You  may  state  about  the  falling  and 
what  you  saw  in  the  meeting?  A.  I  at- 
tended three  or  four  at  Isaac  Morley's  in  the 
evening.  I  have  heard  Black  Pete,  as  we 
called  him,  as  he  went  over  the  hills  halloa- 
ing and  making  strange  noises,  and  the 
common  report  was  that  he  was  speaking 
in  tongues  and  making  speeches.  And  in 
the  house  I  have  seen  young  men  and  wo- 
men seemingly  unconscious  and  the  folks 
said  they  had  lain  so  for  two  days  and  they 
were  there  on  their  beds  and  nobody  tried 
to  prevent  us  looking  at  them,  but  we  were 
not  allowed  to  go  into  the  room.  That  is 
all  I  have  got  to  say  with  regard  to  the 
meeting. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION   BY    MB.  KELLEY: 

Q.  Have  you  been  in  those  meetings  ? 
A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  any  display  of  power 
In  the  meetings?  A.  I  have  seen  people 
lose  their  consciousness  and  fall  off  from 
their  seats. 

Q,.  Any  other  performances  aside  from 
this?  A.  No  other  performances  in  the 
congregation  except  those  I  have  stated  to 
you. 

Q.  Now  was  there  any  other  performances 
or  anything  of  that  kind?  A.  Black  Pete 
used  to  make  a  noise  like  Indians  but  I  can 
not  say  how  he  made  it.  It  was  made  close 
to  me  sometimes  in  the  dark  and  sometimes 
in  the  moonlight.  Report  said  it  was  Black 
Pete,  I  say  we  all  thought  so. 

HE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  BRADEN : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  them  jump  up  in 
the  air  and  go  through  the  performance  of 
scalping  and  so  on?  A.  I  never  did,  sir. 

Q,.  You  may  state  next  about  your  speak- 
ing in  tongues,  and  Sidney  Rigdon  inter- 
preting? A.  Shall  I  answer  thai  question 
by  itself  or  shall  I  go  farther  back  ? 


Q.  Did  you  ever  speak  in  tongues  and  did 
any  man  interpret  it?  A.  I  do  not  think, 
sir,  I  ever  spoke  in  tongues.  I  made  some 
kind  of  a  language. 

Q.  Did  any  man  ever  pretend  to  interpret 
it?  A.  Yes,  sir,  Sidney  Rigdon. 

Q.  You  may  describe  the  circumstances 
connected  with  it.  T«ll  what  you  did  and 
what  he  did.  A.  The  first  that  I  ever  heard 
of  what  was  acknowledged  to  be  a  speaking 
with  tongues  was  at  a  gathering  a  little 
West  of  here  on  this  bank,  not  far  from 
the  house  where  old  father  Smalley  used  to 
live.  lean  not  think  of  the  man's  name. 
People  were  in  the  habit  of  having  what 
they  called  feasts  and  we  would  commonly 
have  a  short  address  as  opening  of  the 
feasts,  and  the  address  would  be  from  a 
text  something  like  this,  "And  we  shall 
have  a  feast  of  fat  things.  Wine  on  the 
lees  well  refined."  I  have  quoted  one  of 
the  texts.  They  generally  had  two  pails 
of  wine.  It  was  called  a  feast.  We  had 
a  tin  cup  and  when  the  audience  was 
convened  and  a  speech  made  then  with 
a  cup  in  each  pail  they  passed  around 
the  pails,  the  women  on  one  side  of 
the  house  and  the  men  on  the  other,  and 
we  had  as  much  wine  as  we  wanted. 
Then  we  had  a  hymn  and  sometimes  prayer. 
Then  the  wine  would  be  passed  around 
again,  and  then  we  would  have  cakes  and 
wine  and  the  outside  people  not  wishing  to 
sponge  would  take  doughnuts  in  their 
pockets  from  their  homes  and  everybody 
had  access  to  them  and  was  welcomed  to 
what  they  wanted.  After  the  cakes  and 
wine  had  been  passed  it  was  the  season 
then  to  speak  with  tongues  and  I  spoke  with 
the  rest.  Of  course  I  heard  the  rest  of  them 
and  I  made  such  noises  as  the  rest  of  them 
did ;  and  somehow  or  other  the  story  ob- 
tained that  I  had  the  power  to  speak  with 
tongues.  They  had  a  meeting  I  think  in 
an  old  log  house  on  the  Ayer's  place.  That 
was  the  first  time,  I  think,  I  ever  heard 
Rigdon  interpret  the  unknown  tongues.  I 
talked  in  unknown  tongues  and  others 
talked  and  he  interpreted  my  speech.  And 
allowing  that  Sidney  interpreted  what  I 
said  I  never  made  so  fine  a  speech  in  my 
life.  Sidney  said  I  had  got  beyond  him.  I 
have  spoken  a  good  many  times  before 
Rigdon  and  Smith. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  patriarch  Joseph  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  patriarch  Joseph 
at  any  of  these  feasts  when  you  thought  ha 
was  under  the  influence  of  wine?  A.  I  will 
say  I  could  not  tell.  The  old  gentleman 
took  a  place  in  the  corner.  I  do  not  know 
as  I  ever  saw  him  set  anywhere  else  when 
sitting  at  a  feast,  only  in  a  corner.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  ever  saw  him  leave  his 
position. 

Q.  From  Mr.  Smith's  appearance  what 
was  your  belief  with  reference  to  his  con- 
dition as  to  intoxication  when  you  were  at 
those  feasts?  A.  I  would  not  say  thai  ht> 
was  intoxicated. 

Q,.  At  the  time  Mr.  Smith  was  sitting  IK 
tho  corner  did  ho  apj-e^r  to  be  iutoxicateJ? 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


389 


A.  I  could  not  form  any  conclusion  from 
the  looks  of  the  man. 

Q,.  Did  you  know  anything  about  their 
digging  for  treasure  or  money  in  this 
vicinity?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  done?  A.  I  will  fix 
the  time  if  somebody  will  tell  me  when 
this  temple  was  plastered.  I  burned  the 
lime  to  plaster  the  inside  of  the  temple  for 
a  man  that  belonged  to  the  Church  ;  that 
man's  name  I  cannot  think  of.  I  was 
-working  for  him  by  the  month,  and  he  set 
me  to  do  that  kind  of  work,  and  that  was 
the  hardest  part  of  my  month's  work;  the 
digging  was  done  on  what  is  now  Mr.  Try- 
on's  farm. 

BY  THE  COURT  : 

Q.  What  kind  of  treasure  were  you  dig- 
ding  for?  A.  You  will  get  the  idea  better 
to  tell  you  how  the  man'dug. 

Q.  Was  it  minerals  of  any  kind  or  money 
treasure?  A.  I  do  not  remember  that  the 
man  told  me  what  to  dig  for.  But  he  took 
a  little  leather  bag  and  he  told  me  to  dig. 
I  would  dig  down  about  as  deep  as  my 
shoulders  and  the  water  would  come  in, 
and  then  he  would  go  there  and  set  this 
way  (  stooping  over  and  looking  toward 
the  floor  )  a  little  leather  bag,  a  little 
bigger  than  my  thumb,  but  not  as  big  as  a 
broom  handle;  there  was  something  in  the 
bag  that  the  man  was  very  choice  of,  and 
lie  kept  it  in  a  secure  place.  He  would  hold 
the  staring  up  to  his  eyes,  and  the  bag  would 
begin  to  vibrate,  and  whichever  way  it 
swayed  the  farthest  that  is  the  way  he 
would  dig.  Then  if  we  did  not  find  any- 
thing he  would  use  the  bag  again,  and 
whichever  way  it  swayed  the  farthest  they 
would  dig  the  farthest  in  that  direction. 


BY  MB. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  what  he  was  dig- 
.ging  for,  did  you,  Mr.  Smith.  A.  No,  sir. 

BY  MB.  BBADEN  : 

Q.  Were  there  any  other  cases  of  digging 
that  you  know  of?  A.  Yes,  sir.  There 
was  an  old  lady  that  belonged  to  the  Church, 
a  widow  IPetingail,  that  had  a  vision  that 
there  wau  money  buried  on  a  hog-back 
corered  with  hemlock.  Mr.  Campbell 
brought  her  along  the  road  near  tomy  shop. 
when  she  pointed  out  the  place  she  had 
«emi  in  her  vision,  and  they  dug  there. 

CIIOSS-EXAMINATION  BY  MR.  KELLEY: 

(J,.  They  were  digging  for  money  there? 
A.  They  were  digging  for  money. 

(I.  Were  any  of  the  Church  officials 
(In  that,  Mr.  Smith?  A.  Nobody  but  the 
old.  lady,  I  think. 

Q,.  You  did  not  know  whether  the  man 
yc  u  was  working  for  was  digging  for  money 
07  not?  A.  His  term  was  tills,  that  it  was 
a  tr«dasure. 

Q.  Were  any  of  the  people  around  helping 
him?  A.  1  could  not  say. 

Q.  Now  don't  you  know  that  he  was  not 
digging  under  the  direction  of  the  Church? 
A.  I  don't  know  anything  about  it.  I  will 
eay  this,  that  we  burned  lime  for  the 


Church,  and  some  of  them  were  there  for 
lime  twice  a  day,  and  there  were  a  good 
many  there  that  thought  there  was  treasure 
there.  I  did  not  think  there  was  any  sanc- 
tion of  the  Church. 

Q.  Did  you  not  know  of  any  person  dig- 
ging for  money  here  before  the  Saints  came? 
A.  No,  I  don't  know  that  there  was. 

Q,.  What  was  this  gentleman's  name  that 
you  were  working  for?  A.  I  do  not  remem- 
ber, he  was  an  old  gentleman.  He  was  a 
man  who  had  lost  his  wife.  He  had  found 
a  treasure,  and  it  is  true  that  he  did  dis- 
cover a  bank  of  horse  bone  lime. 

Q,.  Was  he  a  Mormon?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  had  he  belonged  to  the 
church?  A.  Indeed,  sir,  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Now  Mr.  Smith  give  me  your  opinion, 
whether  or  not  it  was  a  kind  of  freak  of  bis 
and  he  said  something  there  that  he  thought 
he  could  see,  and  it  was  his  eccentricity 
that  you  may  find  over  the  country,  or  was 
it  anything  according  to  his  faith?  A.  I 
do  not  think  I  can  form  any  opinion  now. 

Q.  Did  you  think  at  the  time  it  was  his 
religion  that  made  him  do  it?  A.  I  do  not 
know. 

Q.  Did  not  that  report  about  money 
being  buried  make  others  dig  besides  the 
Saints?  A.  I  never  heard  of  them  digging; 
my  impression  is  there  was  some  digging 
done  where  Mr.  Smalley  lived. 

Q.  Who  was  that  digging  down  there 
where  Mr.  Smalley  lived?  A.  Idon'tknow 
anything  about  it,  but  report  said  Martin 
Harris  caused  it  to  be  done. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  with  regard  to 
these  feasts,  Mr.  Smith,  if  they  were  not 
wedding  feasts?  A.  No,  sir.  When  they 
first  started  out  they  were  attended  weekly. 
It  seemed  to  be  a  little  expensive,  so  they 
did  not  have  them  quite  so  often.  I  think 
they  had  a  gallon  of  wine  or  two,  and  they 
dis-continued  having  them  weekly  and  had 
them  semi-monthly. 

Was  this  a  sacrament  meeting?  A.  Oh, 
no!  It  was  a  feast. 

Q.  Did  you  belong  to  the  church  then? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  unite  with  them?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  They  never  ever  cast  anybody  out? 
A.  No,  sir,  they  had  attractions  that  called 
young  folks  in. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  immoral  things  in 
their  meetings?  A.  "Not  immoral ;  but  I 
have  seen  them  jolly.  They  acted  as  though 
they  felt  good. 

Q.  Did  you  taste  of  the  wine?  A.  Yes,  I 
drank  with  the  rest  of  them. 

Q.  How  many  glasses  did  you  generally 
drink?  A.  About  two;  we  were  all  of  us 
young  folks,  and  we  behaved  ourselves 
well.  There  was  no  bad  conduct  at  the 
feast,  and  we  had  a  good  time. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  speak  of  speaking  in. 
tongues  you  had  heard  them  speak  in 
tongues  at  their  meetings?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  your  speaking  was  the  represen« 
tation  of  these  sounds.  A.  I  heard  unknown 
tongues  and  I  thought  I  could  imitate 
them. 


890 


THE  BRHDEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Q.  And  when  Sydney  interpreted  you 
you  do  not  know  but  what  he  actually  in- 
terpreted ?  A.  Sydney  Rigdon  said  I  spoke 
three  languages.  That  iny  best  language 
was  Nephite. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  the  first  time 
that  you  have  heard  anybody  speak  in 
tongues  ?  A.  I  think  it  was  here  in  Kirt- 
land. 

Q,  Do  you  know  the  first  man  in  the 
Church^ that  was  ever  reported  to  have 
Bp«>ken  in  tongues?  A.  No,  sir.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  know  it  was  some  time  after  the 
church  was  organized  before  they  professed 
to  have  that  gift,  do  you  not?  A.  Really  I 
do  not  know  when  the  church  was  organ- 
ized. I  know  when  the  feasts  were  held, 
and  about  the  time  and  it  might  have  been 
the  same  season  when  they  were  plastering 
the  temple.  I  cannot  say  I  first  took  the 
thought  from  young  boys  getting  up  on  a 
stump  and  speaking  in  tongues. 

Q.  Those  cases  where  they  seemed  to  fall 
Over  was  it  not  sometimes  from  fainting 
through  over-crowded  houses,  or  something 
like  that?  A.  I  never  saw  it  any  where  else. 
They  were  wholly  unconscious,  and  some 
roguish'  boys  would  stick  a  pin  into  the 
arm  and  there  was  no  manifestation  of  sen- 
sation. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  of  such  occur- 
rences in  any  other  church?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  such  action  occur  in  the 
Christian  church  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  that 
they  ever  did  in  the  Christian  church. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  Mr.  Smith  ?  A. 
Nothing  !  I  have  no  business. 

Q.  Are  you  a  minister?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  church  are  you  a  member  of? 
A.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Christian  church. 

Q.  You  were  quite  well  acquainted  with 
Joseph  Smith,  the  old  gentleman?  A.  Yes, 
sir.  „ 

Q.  Did  they  try  to  force  you  into  their 
religion  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  Joseph  Smith  and  Sydney  Rig- 
don  dishonest  men  ?  A.  I  do  not  know  but 
what  they  were  all  right. 

Q.  Was  this  club  or  pike  ever  used  by  any 
of  our  people?  A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q,.  Do  you  know  how  many  they  had 
made?  A.  I  do  not  know  but  they  had  those 
three  and  Mr.  Cluff  said  we  armed  our- 
selves. 

Q,.  At  that  time  had  not  a  number  of  the 
Saints  left  here?  A.  I  could  not  answer  that. 
He  was  going  away,  and  that  was  the  reason 
he  said  ne  did  not  want  it? 

Q.  Had  not  a  number  gone  before  the 
church  was  burned?  A.  I  cannot  remem- 
ber about  that. 

Q,.  Did  you  ever  know  Joseph  Smith,  or 
Oliver  Cowdery,  or  Martin  Harris  to  do 
any  immoral  thing?  A.  No,  I  never  did. 
I  never  saw  any  of  these  things  done.  I 
never  heard  any  complaint  about  Sydney 
Rigdon  here  in  Kirtland.  Oliver  Cow- 
dery'a  name  was  not  so  good,  and  Martin 
Harris  was  a  good  honest  soul  as  you  would 
wish  to  be  with.  Some  said  he  was  a  little 
visionary.  I  heard  him  challenge  Bro. 


Moss  here  in  the  street  for  a  debate,  and 
Bro.  Moss  would  not  go  in. 

Q.  I  will  now  ask  you,  Mr. 'Smith,  if 
sometime  during  the  year  directly  after 
the  temple  was  built,  if  there  was  not  some* 
members  cut  off  for  these  peculiar  freaks  ? 
A.  Tt  might  have  been,  done,  but  I  have  no 
recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  the  Parishes?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Perhaps  you  know  of  their  being 
severed  from  the  Church?  A.  I  remember 
the  name  of  the  Parishes,  as  not  a  name  to 
be  desired.  I  cannot  remember  what  was 
done  with  them. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  have  you  told  the 
worst  you  know  about  trie  people  and  their 
worship.  Personally  have  you  told  the 
worst  you  know  about  the  people,  commonly 
called  the  Mormons,  while  they  were  here? 
A.  I  have,  and  I  could  satisfy  you  that  the 
Mormons  called  themselves  Mormons. 

Q.  In  regard  to  their  acts,  or  their  immoral 
acts,  or  what  they  did  as  to  immoral  con- 
duct, do  you  personally  know  anything  that 
would  be  derogatory  to  the  Mormon  char- 
acter? A.  I  do  not  know  chat  I  have  told 
the  worst,  I  know  I  have  tried  to  answer 
these  questions. 

Q,.  Are  you  afraid  that  if  they  should 
come  back  they  would  injure  anybody? 
A.  I  would  not  like  to  have  them  come 
back.  We  kept  our  doors  all  locked,  and 
somebody  tipped  over  a  smoke  house  and 
carried  off  nine  hams.  I  did  not  know  it 
was  Mormons  though.  I  say  honestly^this, 
I  am  afraid  we  should  get  the  same  impres- 
sion that  we  did  before.  I  would  not  like 
to  have  them  carry  on  as  they  did  before. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  them? 
A.  No,  sir,  I  say  I  do  not. 

Q.  Are  there  others  that  lived  around 
there  then?  A.  Mr.  Harmon  and  myself, 
that  is  about  all  I  know  of. 

Q.  Now,  were  you  here  last  Spring  when? 
the  Latter  Day  Saints  were  here?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  met  with  them  here,  and  talked 
in, their  meeting?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  Did  not  you  say,  you  welcomed  them 
back?  A.  No,  sir.  "Not  to  my  recollection. 
I  will  tell  you  the  first  remark  I  did  make 
when  Uncle  Wm.  Smith  had  been  speak- 
ing. He  was  a  little  older  than  myself,  and 
I  arose  and  said.  Wra.  Smith  had  better 
continue  that  subject  a  little  longer,  and 
then  I  said  I  think  you  are  all  wrong. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  anything  bad  at  that 
convention?  A.  No,  I  did  not  learn  any- 
thing bad.  I  heard  some  foolish  stories 
though. 

Q,.  You  hear  things  similar  to  what  you 
hear  in  any  testimony  meeting?  A.  I  will 
refer  to  one  or  two  assertions  of  marvellous 
interpositions  of  Divine  power  raising  the 
dead  and  healing  the  sick. 

Q.  You  simply  thought  they  were  foolish 
becauseyoudidnotnot  believesuch  things? 
A.  That  was  all. 

Q.  You  would  not  have  been  in  their 
meetings  if  you  had  thought  them  bad  dur- 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


891 


Ing  the  time  of  the  convention?  A.  Mr, 
Joseph  Smith  made  the  best  temperance 
lecture  that  I  have  ever  heard,  and  I 
"  warmed  "  to  him  as  the  German's  say. 
He  said  "I  would  like  to  see  the  Garfleld 
farm."  I  said  "  Why  don't  you  get  into 
some  old  wagon  and  go  there?"  He  said 
"  I  would  like  to  go  to-morrow,"  and  E  said 
"  I  would  come  over  and  take  him  there ;  " 
and  I  came  over  and  we  went  down  there. 
I  had  a  good  ride  with  Joseph,  and  brought 
him  back  again  ;  and  the  brethren  thought 
it  some  thing  wonderful.  They  said  "  Did 
he  convert  you?"  I  said  I  have  been  past 
praying  for,  for  years.  It  was  our  good 
friend  Mr.  Blair  that  asked  me  the  question. 

BE-DIRECT  EXAMINATION  BY   MR.  BRADEN: 

Q.  Is  it  your  recollection  or  your  impres- 
sion, Mr.  Smith,  that  you  have  heard  of  trie 
sealing  of  women  to  men  here  in  Kirtland, 
and  the  sealing  of  Nancy  Rigdon  to  Joseph 
Smith?  A.  My  impression  is  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  heard  it  spoken  of  and 
talked  of  here?  A.  My  impression  is  I 
have. 

HE-CROSS  EXAMINATION    BY    MR.    KELLEY  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  it  talked  of  while 
the  Saints  lived  here?  A.  I  say  I  have 
heard  it  talked  of.  My  impression  is  that 
I  have  heard  it  talked  of  here  in  Kirtland, 
and  that  the  story  obtained  that  the  diffi- 
culty between  Joseph  Smith  and  Sydney 
Rigdon  was  in  consequence  of  the  wish  or 
the  manifestation  on  the  part  of  Joseph 
Smith  that  Rigdon's  daughter  Nancy  should 
be  sealed  to  him. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  was  between  Joseph 
Smith  and  Rigdon,  and  that  it  was  a  diffi- 
culty occurred  here  in  Kirtland.  Who  did 
you  hear  talk  about  their  having  trouble 
herein  Kirtland?  A.  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  Was  it  any  of  the  Saints?  A.  I  can 
not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know,  Mr.  Smith,  that 
there  was  not  any  report  of  any  such  thing 
as  that  as  of  Nancy  Rigdon  being  sealed  to 
Joseph  Smith  while  the  Saints  were  here 
in  Kirtland?  A.  My  impression  is  that 
that  report  was  here  in  Kirtland.  I  went 
to  school  with  Athalia  Rigdon,  and  there 
was  talk  among  the  boys  about  sealing.  I 
think  there  was  difficulty  between  Joseph 
Smith  and  Rigdon  with  reference  to  having 
Rigdon's  daughter  sealed  to  Smith.  I  would 
not  positively  say  it  was  so ;  that  is  my 
impression. 

Q.  How  old  was  Nancy  Rigdon  at  that 
time?  A.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  went  to  school 
with  Athalia  Rigdon. 

Q.  How  old  was  she?  A.  I  cannot  tell. 
Nor  can  I  tell  how  old  I  was.  Nancy  Rigdon 
was  the  oldest.  I  do  not  know  how  much 
older  than  Athalia. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  of  them  talk 
about  sealing?  A.  Yes,  I  am  positive 
that  I  heard  that  language  used  among  the 
boys. 

Q.  Did  they  not  talk  about  the  sealing  of 
the  Holy  Spirit?  Is  not  that  what  you 
heard  them  talk  about?  A.  No,  the  seal- 
ing was  in  some  way  or  other  with  the 


women.  My  impression  is  that  I  have  heard 
that  story  of  the  quarrel  between  Rigdon 
and  Smith  talked  of  here  in  Kirtland. 

Q.  Is  it  not  probable  that  they  were  talk- 
ing those  things  after  they  went  to  Nauvoo. 
You  got  it  mixed.  A.  It  may  be,  but  I  give 
you  my  best  recollection. 

(Signed :)  WM.  S.  SMITH. 

STATE  OF  OHIO,  \ 
Lake  County.    /bs* 

Subscribed  by  Wm.  8.  Smith,  and  sworn 
to  before  me  this  15th  day  of  March,  A.  D, 
1884,  at  Willoughby. 

(Signed)  J.  C.  WARD, 

Notary  Public. 


APPENDIX,  No.  2. 

EVIDENCE  OF  WITNESSES  PRODUCED  ON  TUB 
PART  OF  E.  L.  KELLEY. 

REUBEN  P.  HARMON,  being  duly 
sworn,  testifies  as  follows : 

Q.  What  is  your  age  Mr.  Harmon?  A.  I 
am  69  years  old. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  the  vicin- 
ity of  Kirtland?  A.  I  came  to  Kirtland 
in  the  year  1822;  I  have  been  absent  part  of 
the  time  in  the  South,  perhaps  six  years 
during  that  time;  part  of  the  time  here  and 
part  of  the  time  in  the  South. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Martin 
Harris  while  he  lived  here?  A.  I  was,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  his  reputa- 
tion for  truth  and  veracity  when  he  lived 
here?  A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  what  that  was.  A.  It  was  good, 
so  far  as  I  knew,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  his  reputation  for  honesty  ? 
A.  He  frequently  came  to  my  house,  and 
very  frequently  stayed  overnight;  some- 
times two  or  three  days.  . 

Q.  How  often  d  id  you  see  him,  and  for  how 
many  years  did  you  know  him?  A.  Iknew 
him  most  of  the  time  until  he  went  west  to 
Salt  Lake  or  Utah. 

Q.  About  how  many  years  ago  was  that? 
A.  It  is  a  good  many  years,  and  I  would 
have  to  figure  up  from  the  dates.  It  is 
quite  a  number  of  years  ago. 

Q.  What  was  his  general  reputation  for 
honesty.  A.  I  have  never  heard  his  char- 
acter for  honesty  questioned  by  any  one. 

Q,.  Were  you  personally  acquainted  with 
Oliver  Cowdery.  A.  I  was  but  not  as  inti- 
mately as  with  Martin  Harris. 

Q..  How  long  did  he  live  here?  A.  I 
should  think  about  six  years,  but  I  am  not 
positive. 

<4.  Did  you  know  what  his  general  repu- 
tation for  truth  and  veracity  in  the  neigh- 
borhood was  at  the  time  he  lived  here?  A. 
I  did,  and  the  whole  Cowdery  family  ;  Ol- 
iver Cowdery's  reputation  was  good. 

Q.  Did  David  Whitmer  live  here,  or  did 
you  know  him?  A.  I  did,  and  I  never 
heard  anything  against  him. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Joseph 
Smith?  A.  I  was  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  You  may  state  anything   you  know 


892 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


about  his  conduct  as  being  bad.    A.  I  never 
knew  any  thing  bad  about  him. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  acquainted  with 
him.  A.  Well,  I  can't  give  the  dates.  It 
might  trouble  me  to  give  dates.  From  the 
time  he  came  here  till  he  went  West. 

Q.  Did  you  know  what  his  reputation  was 

as  to  truth  and  veracity  in  this  place  at  the 

time?    A.  I  had  opportunity  of  knowing  it. 

Q,.  Did  you  know  ?    A.  "Yes,  sir,  I  did 

know. 

Q.  What  was  that  reputation?  A.  I  re- 
garded that  it  was  good. 

Q.  What  was  his  reputation  for  honesty? 
State  that.    A.  I  never  heard  it  questioned. 
Q.  Did  you  belong  to  the  church?    A.  I 
did  not  belong  to  any  church. 

Q.  Now  I  will  ask  you  to  state  with  re- 
gard to  the  people  known  as  Mormons, 
or  Latter  Day  Saints,  who  lived  here  .at 
that  time.  What  was  their  general  char- 
acter au  compared  with  people  of  other 
neighborhoods,  Mr.  Harmon?  Just  state 
how  the  people  here  compared  with  people 
in  other  places.  A.  If  I  was  to  state  what 
I  know,  I  would  say  that  I  had  no  right  to 
question-  their  honesty.  I  have  heard  re- 
ports, but  I  do  not  know  anything  against 
them. 

Q.  Mr.  Harmon,  was  Mr.  Harris's  word 
always  considered  reliable  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion ?  or  did  he  tell  big  yarns  and  won- 
derful stories?  A.  He  held  ideas  that  I  did 
not  agree  with. 

Q.  Well  did  he  not  tell  extravagant 
stories  of  wonderful  visions  of  sights  and 
sounds?  A.  I  never  heard  him  tell  many 
stories.  With  regard  to  his  testimony 
about  seeing  the  plates,  and  Joseph  Smith, 
and  the  method  of  translation,  some  might 
think  them  extravagant  stories. 

Q.  Would  you  regard  his  statements  as 
visionary?  A.  I  would,  that  is  some  of 
them. 

Q,.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Harmon,  if  these 
stories  that  you  regarded  as  visionary,  were 
stories  about  visions,  and  whether  that  is 
the  reason  you  call  them  so?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Were  his  stories  any  more  extravagant 
than  others  have  stated  with  regard  to  vis- 
ions, etc.,  in  your  estimation?  A.  About 
the  same.  John  Wesley  makes  more  ex- 
travagant expressions  than  I  ever  heard 
Harris  make,  as  found  in  his  work. 

Q.  Do  you  set  Martin  Harris  with  the  rest 
of  them  ?  Was  he  honest?  A.  I  always 
must  regard  him  as  being  honest  with  re- 
gard to  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  its 
translation  ;  and  I  do  not  know  but  that  he 
was  honest  in  his  visions.  I  think  that  he 
was  honest  in  his  visions. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Sidney  Rigdon  ?  and 
when  did  you  first  know  him?  A.  I  think 
I  knew  Sidney  Rigdon  in  1828  or  1829.  He 
was  then  preaching  in  Mentor;  preaching 
what  we  call  Disciple  doctrine.  He  came 
to  my  father's  and  held  meetings  in  his 
barn,  and  babtized  quite  a  number. 

Q.  How  long  afterwards  did  you  know 
him?    A.  I  knew  him  all  through.    Most 
of  the  time  till  he  left  Kirtland. 
Q.  What   was  his  reputation  for  truth 


and  veracity  in  this  vicinity?    A.  I  never 
heard  it  questioned. 

Q.  What  was  his  character  other  than 
for  truth  and  veracity?  A.  I  shall  have  to 
go  into  the  description  of  the  man.  I  heard 
him  preach  a  funeral  sermon  in  1829.  I 
heard  him  preach  frequently  after  that.  He 
is  a  man,  I  should  judge,  who  had  acquired 
a  classical  education.  I  would  regard  him 
as  a  good  English  scholar,  and.  perhaps,  as 
well  versed  in  the  Bible  and  history  as  any 
other  man  that  I  ever  heard  speak  ;  having 
read  Grecian  and  Roman  history,  he  fre- 
quently used  descriptions  from  these  auth- 
ors. He  was  eloquent  in  language,  and  an 
excellent  speaker,  and  carried  an  audience 
with  him.  He  established  a  church  in  Men- 
tor, also  came  and  held  a  revival  in  Kirt- 
land. The  meeting-house,  a  one-story  build- 
ing, was  completed  in  Mentor  at  the  time 
when  Oliver  Cowdery  and  Parley  P.  Pratt 
came  on  here.  I  heard  Sidney  Rigdon  the 
last  speech  that  he  made  while  he  officiated 
as  a  Disciple  preacher.  He  said  he  had 
been  mistaken  all  his  life-time,  and  he  quit 
preaching  and  went  into  Mr.  Morley's  field 
and  went  to  plowing.  Worked  at  common 
labor  for  some  time,  until  he  took  up  the 
Latter  Day  Saint  doctrine  aud  began  to 
preach  it.  He  did  not  go  to  preaching  righ  t 
away  after  he  left  the  Disciple  church.  I 
heard  him  make  the  remark  that  he  never 
expected  to  speak  in  public  again.  There 
was  quite  a  church  of  the  Disciples  herein 
Kirtland,  and  he  carried  a  portion  of  them 
with  him  into  the  Latter  Day  Saints'  church. 
He  preached  that  doctrine  from  that  time 
on  until  he  left  here.  I  considered  him  a 
good  Latter  Day  Saint  member. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  from  what  you 
saw  and  heard  of  him,  in  regard  to  "the 
story  that  he  was  connected  with  Joseph 
Smith  in  getting  up  the  Book  of  Mormon? 
A.  I  never  could  make  out  in  my  ov 
mind  that  Mr.  Rigdon  ever  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  getting  up  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon. 

Q.  Do  you  think  there  was  an  opportunity 
for  Mr.  Rigdon  to  have  had  access  to 
Spaulding's  manuscript  at  the  time  the 
Book  of  Mormon  was  gotten  up?  A.  At 
that  time  he  was  preaching  in  Mentor. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  him  state  his  own 
views  as  to  whether  he  ever  had  any  con- 
nection with  Smith  and  the  Spaulding 
story,  as  it  was  charged  to  nim?  A.  I  heard 
him  make  this  remark  in  his  last  speech 
that  he  made  to  the  public  here.  He  said, 
"It  was  a  thing  that  I  never  thought  of 
until  Oliver  Cowdery  and  Parley  Pratt 
introduced  it  to  me."  When  all  of  these 
stories  first  started  about  his  having  been 
connected  with  Smith,  and  the  getting  up 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  they  were  first  cir- 
culated by  a  man  by  the  name  of  Hurlbut. 
He  raised  a  little  contribution  in  order  to 
go  to  New  York  state,  and  inquire  into  the 
matter.  He  was  a  man  of  bad  character, 
and  I  think  he  had  been  connected  with 
the  Latter  Day  Saint  Church.  We  made 
up  a  contribution  and  sent  him  back  to 
Palmyra  to  investigate  the  charade'-  ox'  ch» 


THE  BBADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


893 


Smith  family,  and  the  means  of  their  ac- 
quiring the  Book  of  Mormon.  He  went  on 
and  got  affidavits.  The  meeting  was  held 
in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  meeting  and  one  of 
the  parties  who  helped  to  send  him?  A. 
Yes,  sir  ;  but  I  will  say,  however,  that  Sid- 
ney l?i<rdon  at  the  time  he  made  his  last 
speech  here,  said  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  the  Book  of  Mormon  until  it  was  pre- 
sented to  him  by  Oliver  Cowdery  and 
Parley  Pratt.  I  never  heard  of  theSpauld- 
ing  story  until  it  was  sprung  on  me. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  about  Hul- 
burt  getting  the  manuscript?  A.  No,  sir. 
We  sent  him  to  get  the  affidavits.  He  got 
the  most  of  them  in  Palmyra.  The  principal 
ones  are  in  a  book  that  I  have  over  here. 

Q.  Is  it  the  affidavits  in  Howe's  book  that 
you  refer  to  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  about  these  same  par- 
ties sending  him  to  New  York  to  get  a  man- 
uscript? A.  They  sent  him  to  gather  all 
the  information  he  could  about  the  Latter 
Day  Saint  Church. 

Q.  Did  he  get  the  affidavits  first,  or  the 
manuscript?  A.  He  did  not  get  the  man- 
uscript at  all,  that  I  know  of.  I  never  saw 
the  manuscript.  He  said  he  saw  a  man 
who  had  read  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
that  he  said  that  it  resembled  the  manu- 
script. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  after  he  returned 
from  the  widow  of  Solomon  Spaulding, 
where  he  went  to  get  the  manuscript?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q,.  Were  you  ever  in  the  Saints'  meet- 
Ings  while  they  were  held  here  in  Kirtland? 
A.  Oh  !  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  Did  you  ever  see  any  thing  disorderly  or 
unbecoming  in  them?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  attend  any  of  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Disciple  church?  A.  I  was  in 
the  meetings  of  the  Disciples  that  were  held 
on  Mr.  Morley's  farm.  \  man  by  the  name 
of  Billings  preached.  The  first  ceremony 
that  I  remember  witnessing  was  the  wash- 
ing of  feet.  It  was  in  a  little  log  building, 
the  Disciple  church.  It  was  while  Mr. 
Rigdon  was  preaching  in  Mentor.  After- 
wards I  frequently  went  to  their  meetings 
that  were  held  on  the  Morley  place. 

Q,.  Did  you  ever  hear  Rigdon  shout  or 
anything  of  that  kind  ?  A.  I  never  heard 
him  make  any  other  demonstration  than  a 
plain  address. 

Q.  When  you  attended  the  early  meetings 
of  the  Saints,  how  did  they  act?  A.  After 
the  discovery  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  there 
were  frequently  meetings  around  here  and 
a  large  concourse  of  people  attended  them. 
Many  came  out  of  curiosity.  They  had 
singing  and  praying  and  a  little  preaching, 
and  sort  of  social  meetings. 

Q.  Would  any  of  the  women  or  meu  have 
the  power?  A.  This  negro,  Black  Pete, 
that  they  spoke  of  came  here  at  an  early 
time  with  a  man  from  Pennsylvania.  I  saw 
him  in  that  condition  in  a  log  building  lying 
on  his  back. 

Q.  Was  he  a  member  of  the  Latter  Day 
Suiut  church  ?  A.  I  do  not  know. 


Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  one  else  in  that 
condition  in  their  meetings?  A.  No,  sir: 
only  this  negro.  He  would  jump  up  and 
display  a  great  deal  of  strength  and  activity. 

Q.  Was  any  of  the  ministers  present.  A. 
I  do  not  think  there  was.  I  did  not  hear  of 
any  more  of  such  performances  after  Joseph 
Smith  came  here. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  anything  of  the  kind 
in  the  meetings  held  by  Parley  Pratt,  Oliver 
Cowdery  or  Sidney  Rigdon,  after  Rigdon 
united  with  the  Saints?  A.  No.  I  have 
heard  them  talk  in  tongues  some,  and  heard 
Joseph  Smith  interpret  once. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  one  fall  down  in 
their  meetings  after  Joseph  Smith  came 
here?  A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not.  I  attended 
their  large  meetings,  and  when  there  was  a 
sacrament  of  cold  water  and  bread. 

Q.  You  were  well  acquainted  with  the 
people,  were  you?  A.  Yes,  eir. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  you  know  about  any  one 
of  them  having  more  wives  than  one?  A. 
If  Martin  Harris  can  be  regarded  as  auth- 
ority there  was  no  such  thing  as  polygamy 
among  them  until  they  went  to  Salt  Lake. 
He  told  me  so.  There  was  nothing  of  the 
kind  here  that  I  ever  heard  of.  I  have  heard 
them  speak  against  polygamy. 

Q.  Would  you  be  afraid  that  your  prop- 
erty would  be  insecure  if  the  Latter  Day 
Saints  were  to  come  back  here?  A.  No,  I 
never  was  afraid  of  my  neighbors  taking 
my  property,  and  I  would  not  be  of  them. 
REUBEN  P.  HARMON. 

A.  E.  SANBOR^,  having  been  produced 
and  duly  sworn,  testifies  as  follows  : 

Q.  Mr.  Sanborn,  where  do  you  live  ?  A. 
I  live  about  a  mile  East  of  here. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here?  A. 
About  47  years. 

Q,.  Were  you  acquainted  with  the  Latter 
Day  Saints  at  the  time  they  lived  here?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  and  before  they  came  here. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Martin 
Harris?  A.  Yes,  sir,  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  know  his  reputation  for  truth 
and  veracity  in  the  neighborhood  when, 
he  lived  here?  A.  I  never  heard  it  ques- 
tioned. 

Q.  Was  his  reputation  good  or  bad?  A. 
It  was  good.  Nobody  disputed  his  word  in 
anything,  unless  it  was  his  visionary  sto- 
ries. He  was,  to  my  mind,  a  little  vision- 
ary. 

Q.  You  may  state  if  it  was  not  on  account 
of  what  he  related  about  seeing  the  plates 
that  makes  you  think  he  was  visionary.  A. 
Why,  yes,  I  should  think  so. 

Q!  Were  you  personally  acquainted  with 
Oliver  Cowdery  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  personally  acquainted  with 
Joseph  Smith?  A.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  ac- 
quainted with  Joseph  Smith. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  his  reputation  was 
for  truth  and  veracity  at  the  time  he  lived 
here  in  this  neighborhood?  A.  At  the  time 
he  lived  here  until  the  time  he  went  west 
(he  went  before  I  did)  it  was  not  ques- 
tioned. I  lived  just  across  the  street  from 
him  in  Nauvoo. 


894 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


Q.  Yon  may  state  all  you  know  about  him. 
A.  Well,  I  knew  him  to  be  a  kind,  gener- 
ous and  truthful  neighbor;  he  was  a  very 
kind  man. 

Q.  What  was  his  general  moral  charac- 
ter? A.  It  was  good. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Sidney 
Eigdon?  A.  Yes,  sir.  He  lived  pretty 
close  to  Smith.  Probably  fifteen  rods  away. 

Q,.  What  kind  of  a  man  was  Iligdon  ? 
State  as  nearly  as  you  can  describe  him  ?  A. 
Well,  he  was  quite  a  good  looking  man  ; 
would  weigh  about  200  pounds  ;  had  rather 
a  round  face,  shortish  countenance  and 
squeaking  voice.  For  that  reason  I  never 
liked  to  hear  him  preach.  Some  called  him 
a  good  orator,  but  I  did  not.  I  never  knew 
anything  about  him  but  what  was  all  right 
as  to  character. 

Q.  What  was  his  reputation  for  truth  and 
veracity?  A.  I  never  heard  it  questioned, 
either  here  or  in  Nauvoo,  and  I  lived  there 
close  by  him,  and  talked  with  him  nearly 
every  week. 

Q,.  Did  you  know  David  Whitmer?  A. 
I  do  not  recollect  him.  If  he  lived  in 
Kirtland  I  do  not  recollect  him  at  all. 

Q.  Were  you  living  at  Nauvoo  at  the  time 
of  Smith's  death  ?  A.  I  Jived  there  until  the 
fall  of  1840,  and  then  I  came  back  here  to 
Kirtland. 

Q.  Were  you  living  here  all  the  time  the 
Saints  were  here?  A.  Oh,  no.  They  were 
here  when  I  came.  This  temple  was  built 
in  1834.  I  came  in  the  spring,  and  I  think 
it  was  dedicated  in  the  spring  of  1836.  I 
have  been  a  little  confounded.  I  supposed 
the  temple  was  dedicated  when  it  was  fin- 
ished. This  is  all  I  recollect  about  it.  I 
came  here  the  spring  it  was  dedicated, 
and  think  it  was  in  1836. 

Q.  What  did  you  know  of  the  people  when 
you  lived  here,  if  anything  that  was  im- 
moral? A.  I  do  not  know  any  thing.  There 
was  some  stealing  going  on  at  the  time  the 
Mormons  were  here.  It  was  laid  on  the 
Mormons  by  some  at  the  time ;  but  after- 
wards there  was  a  revival  here  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  in  which  the  parties  that 
did  the  stealing  owned  to  it.  They  were 
Presbyterians. 

Q,.  State  whether  they  were  in  the  prac- 
tice of  polygamy  here  or  not?  A.  Not  that 
I  knew  of. 

Q.  You  would  have  known  it  if  they  had 
been,  would  you  not?  A.  I  ought  to,  my 
father  was  a  Mormon. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION  BY   MK.   BRADEN  : 

Q.  Mr.  Harris'  word  and  honor  was  re- 
garded good  in  matters  of  business,  but 
when  telling  his  religious  experience  you 
thought  h'm  visionary?  A.  We  rather 
thought  him  visionary. 

RE-DIBECT: 

Q.  During  your  acquaintance  and  Inti- 
mate association  with  Sydney  Rigdon, 
what  was  your  judgment  with  reference  to 
his  being  connected  with  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon before  its  publication?  A.  I  do  not 
know  anything  at  all  as  to  that.  I  had  this 


Anti-Mormon  Book  40  years  ago,  but  I  cao 
not  find  it  now. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  gather  from  any  conver- 
sation you  had  with  Rigdon  that  he  \va» 
connected  in  any  way  with  the  publication 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  ?  A.  I  never  talked 
with  him  anything  about  that. 

Q.  State  what  you  know  about  the  intro- 
duction of  polygamy  into  the  church.  A. 
I  attended  meetings  both  in  Nauvoo  and 
here  in  Kirtland,  both  in  the  evenings  and 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  I  never  heard  anything 
of  polygamy  at  all  until  after  Smith's 
death. 

A.  E. SANBORN. 

J.  M.  PLAISTED,  being  duly  sworn,  tes- 
tifies as  follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Plaisted,  how  long  have  you  lived 
here  in  Kirtland?  A.  I  have  always  lived 
here.  I  was  born  in  Kirtland.  I  was  born 
in  1831. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  any  of  the 
Latter  Day  Saints  while  they  lived  here? 
A.  I  was  well  acquainted  with  Martin  Har- 
ris at  the  time  he  lived  here. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  his  reputation  for 
truth  and  veracity  was  in  the  neighborhood 
at  the  time?  A.  It  was  good. 

Q.  What  was  his  general  character  as 
to  honesty?  A.  It  was  considered  good.  I 
was  well  acquainted  with  him.  Have  lived 
in  the  same  house  with  him. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION    BY  MR.   BRADEN : 

Q.  Was  he  noted  for  his  extravagant 
claims  and  extravagant  stories  in  religion  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  He  always  wanted  io  be 
preaching.  That  seemed  to  be  on  his  mind. 
He  understood  the  Bible  first-rate  and  was 
quoting  Scripture  a  good  deal  of  the  time. 

RE- DIRECT. — 

Q.  Did  it  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  he 
had  told  that  he  had  seen  the  plates?  A. 
I  think  it  did. 

Q,  He  said  he  had  seen  the  plates  and 
other  people  thought  he  had  not?  A.  Yes, 
sir;  I  have  heard  him  say  that  the  Lord 
appeared  to  him. 

Q,.  In  what  manner  did  he  say  the  Lord 
appeared?  A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  can 
state.  I  have  told  him  that  he  would  go 
crazy  if  he  did  not  quit  talking  on  that  SUD- 
ject  all  the  time. 

(Signed)  J.  M.  PLAISTED. 

EZRA  BOND,  being  duly  sworn  testifies 
as  follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Bond,  were  you  acquainted  with 
Sidney  Rigdon  ?  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was. 

Q.  You  may  state  at  what  time  you  be- 
came acquainted  with  him?  A.  In  the 
year  1834. 

Q.  How  long  afterwards  did  you  know 
him?  A.  I  could  not  state  definitely,  but 
during  the  years  of  his  sojourn  here.  I 
think  from  the  fall  of  1834  to  1836.  In  fact, 
until  he  left  here.  This  has  been  my  home 
from  that  time  until  now. 

Q.  You  may  state  if  you  know  what  his 
reputation  was  for  truth  and  veracity.  A. 
I  cannot  say.  I  was  but  a  boy  at  that  time, 
eight  years  old. 


THE  BRA  DEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


895 


Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Martin 
Harris?  A.  Yes,  sir.  In  the  years  after, 
while  he  resided  here. 

Q.  What  time  was  that?  A.  From  1834 
until  he  left.  I  do  not  know  when  that 
was. 

Q.  You  frequently  met  him  during  the 
time  that  he  was  here,  did  you?  A.  Yes, 
Bir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  his  reputation  was 
for  truth  and  veracity  in  this  neighborhood 
while  he  lived  here.  A.  He  was  considered  a 
truthful  man.  I  have  had  some  deal  with 
him,  and  always  found  he  acted  honest 
and  manly.  That  is  my  testimony  in  that 
respect.  He  might  have  been  liable  to  be 
mistaken,  but  with  no  intention  of  telling 
an  untruth. 

Q.  The  people  did  not  believe  his  state- 
rnent  about  seeing  the  plates  and  the 
angel?  A.  No,  sir.  He  was  regarded  as  a 
kind  of  an  enthusiast,  or  monomaniac  on 
the  religious  question. 

Q.  Was  he  in  the  habit  of  making  extrav- 
agant statements?  A.  He  was  in  the  habit 
of  stating  that  the  Lord  had  told  him 
this  or  that  tiling.  He  seemed  well  versed 
in  the  scriptures,  and  was  over  anxious  to 
give  his  opinions,  and  would  talk  to  any 
one  who  would  listen  to  him. 

Q.  Were  not  his  sayings  thought  extrava- 
gant, because  they  pertained  to  visions,  or 
hearing  the  voice  of  the  Lord?  A.  Yes. 
People  did  not  believe  in  such  things.  He 
was  regarded  in  business  as  an  honest  and 
truthful  man.  I  have  known  people  that 
knew  him  in  New  York  state  and  here, 
and  that  is  the  reputation  they  gave  of  him 
regarding  business. 

Q.  Mr.  Bond,  you  have  been  in  the  Saints' 
meetings  here  during  the  time  of  your  liv- 
ing here,  have  you  not?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  you  ever  saw  them  fall  down, 
act  senseless,  or  anything  in  that  way  ?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  How  old  were  you  in  1832?  A.  I  was 
born  in  1826.  I  remember  Sidney  Rigdon 
better  than  any  one  else,  as  he  was  their 
foremost  speaker.  He  spoke  in  the  temple 
&  great  deal. 

(Signed)  EZRA  BOND. 

F.  C.  RICH,  being  duly  sworn  testifies 
as  follows : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Rich?  A. 
In  the  city  of  Cfeveland. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  live  in  Kirtland?  A. 
Yes,  sir.  I  came  here  in  1831. 

Q.  Did  you  know,  or  were  you  acquainted 
with  Joseph  Smith,  Martin  Harris  and 
Sidney  Rigdon,  or  either  of  them?  Did 
you  know  their  reputation  for  truth  and 
veracity  in  the  neighborhood  at  the  time 
they  lived  here  ?  and  were  you  acquainted 
with  their  moral  character?  A.  I  knew 
nothing  against  them.  I  was  but  a  boy 
however,  but  the  outsiders  persecuted  them 
on  account  of  their  religious  views. 

Q.  You  had  an  opportunity  to  know?  A. 
Yes,  sir;  my  father  was  here  in  an  early 
day  and  was  connected  with  the  church. 


Q.  Were  you  in  their  meetings  frequent- 
ly? A.  Yes,  sir.  Brought  right,  up  in  the 
church.  The  first  meeting  I  recollect  very 
much  about  was  after  the  temple  was  fin- 
ished. I  attended  meetings  right  along 
after  it  was  completed.  I  was  too  young 
during  its  building  to  take  any  particular 
notice  outside. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  anything  of  an  im- 
moral tendency  in  themeetings?  A.  Noth- 
ing that  could  be  considered  immoral. 
They  shouted  Hosannah,  and  seemed  to 
enjoy  their  religion  ;  and,  of  course,  got  ex- 
cited as  other  people  do. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  them  fall  down  and 
go  into  fits,  or  anything  of  that  kind?  A. 
No,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state  what  you  know  about 
any  of  the  leading  men  being  temperate  or 
intemperate  men;  also  in  regard  to  their 
swearing,  or  drinking,  or  anything  of  the 
kind.  A.  They  were  men  of  good  moral 
habits  and  temperate.  Men  that  did  not 
drink  ardent  spirits  at  any  time. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  live  here?  A.  I 
lived  in  Kirtland  from  a  boy  10  years  old 
until  about  ten  years  ago.  I  came  here 
before  the  temple  was  built.  I  never  heard 
of  the  spikes  referred  to  before. 

Q.  Did  your  father  ever  have  such  a  thing 
as  a  spike;  such  as  Braden  has  shown  ?  A. 
I  never  saw  any  spike.  I  do  not  think  he 
required  any. 

Q.  Mr.  Rich,  if  the  spikes  had  been  very 
common  around  would  you  not  have  been 
-likely  to  have  known  it?  A.  I  suppose  I 
should ;  would  have  been  very  apt  to,  I 
think. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  they  believed 
in  having  more  than  one  wife?  A.  I  never 
heard  they  were  in  favor  of  anything  of  the 
kind  here. 

Q.  You  heard  them  talk  with  your  father, 
heard  the  elders  preach,  was  in  their  meet- 
ings, and  mixed  with  them  in  all  the  affairs 
of  life;  if  there  had  been  anything  wrong 
or  bad  in  their  teachings  and  habits  would 
you  not  have  known  it  ?  A.I  am  perfectly 
satisfied  that  the  church  did  not  teach  or 
practice  polygamy,  or  any  other  immoral 
doctrine  while  they  were  in  Kirtland. 

(Signed)  F.  C.  RICH. 


•S3. 


STATE  OF  OHIO,       \ , 
COUNTY  OP  CUYAHOGA.  j ' 

The  above  named  F.  C.  Rich,  being  duly 
sworn,  says  that  the  foregoing  statement  to 
which  he  has  subscribed  his  name  is  true  iu 
substance  and  in  fact. 

(Signed)  F.  C.  RICH. 

Sworn  to  before  me  and  subscribed  in  my 
presence  this  10th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  IfeSi. 
(Signed)  ALEX.  ELMSLIE, 

Notary  Public. 

I,  8.  C.  Carpenter,  a  Justice  of  the  Peace 
In  and  for  the  township  of  Kirtland,  Lake 
county.  Ohio,  do  hereby  certify  that  the 
above  named  Reuben  P.  Harmon,  A.  E. 
Sanboru  Ezra  Bond  and  J.  M.  Plaisted  were 


cue 


THE  BRADEN  AND  KELLEY  DEBATE. 


by  me  first  duly  sworn  to  testify  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth ; 
that  the  foregoing  depositions  by  them  re- 
spectively subscribed  were  reduced  to  writ- 
ing by  Mr.  Fay  in  my  presence  on  the  8th 
day  of  March,  A.  D.  1884,  atKirtland  in  the 
county  and  state  aforesaid  ;  and  by  said 
witnesses  respectively  subscribed  in  my 
presence. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set 
my  hand  this  llth  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1884. 
(Signed)  S.  C.  CARPENTER, 

Justice  of  the  Peace. 


APPENDIX,  NO.  3. 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO,  March  1, 1884. 

DAVID  WHITMER,  ESQ.,  RICHMOND,  Mo.,  Dear  Sir.-— A. 
person  by  the  name  of  J.  H.  Gilbert,  at  Palmyra,  N.  Y., 
claims,  I  am  told,  that  he  set  the  type  for  the  Book  of 
Mormon  and  that  there  were  no  capital  letters  begin- 
ning sentences  and  proper  names  In  the  printers'  man- 
uscript; and  if  there  are  any  in  now  they  have  been 
put  in  since. 

Will  vou  please  examine  the  manuscript  In  your 
possession,  which  you  claim  to  be  the  original  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  ascertain  as  to  whether  there 
are  capital  letters,  and  whether,  If  there  are  such,  they 
are  In  the  original  writing  ?  Or  have  they  been  placed 
in  since  ? 

Does  the  manuscript  show  any  marks  of  having 
passed  through  the  printers'  hands  7  You  will  oblige 
by  answering  at  once,  as  I  desire  to  get  the  facts  in  the 
matter.  It  is  also  claimed  that  Oliver  Cowdery  denied 
his  testimony. 

Very  Respectfully, 

B.  L.  KELLEY. 
APPENDIX  NO.  4. 

RICHMOND,  Mo.,  March  3, 1884. 

E.  L.  KBLLKY,  Dear  Sir.*- Yours  of  1st  received.  In 
answer  to  your  first  question.  First,  the  capitals  are  in 
the  first  writing:  Second,  they  are  the  manuscripts 
used  by  the  printer  and  bear  unmistakable  evidence  of 
the  printer's  using  them,  as  many  of  that  profession 
have  attested.  Oliver  Cowdery  never,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, denied  any  part  of  his  testimony,  on  the  contrary, 
as  I  have  done,  protested  against  every  fabrication 
made  by  designing  persons  and  parties  and  emphati- 
cally testified,  as  written  in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  until 
death  which  occurred  in  this  place.  His  wife  and  child 
yet  living  furnish  one  of  the  best  pictures  of  a  living 
faith  in  what  their  father  testified  to  before  death,  as 
written  in  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

DAVID  WHITMEB. 

APPENDIX  NO.  5. 

TESTIMONIAL  OF  CITIZENS. 

We,  the  undersigned  cltiiens  of  Richmond,  Ray 
county,  Missouri,  where  David  Whitmer,  8r.,  has  re- 
tided  since  the  year  1838,  certify  that  we  have  been 


long  and  intimately  acquainted  with  him  and  know 
him  to  be  a  man  of  the  highest  integrity,  and  of  un- 
doubted truth  and  veracity: 
(Signed) 

A  W.  D^niphan. 

G.  W.  Dunn,  Judge  of  the  Fifth  Judicial  Circuit 

T.  D.  Woodson,  President  of  Ray  Co.  Saving! 
Bank. 

J.  T.  Child,  Editor  of  "The  Conservator." 

H.  C.  Garner,  Cashier  of  Ray  Co.  Savings  Bank. 

W.  A.  Holman,  County  Treasurer. 

J.  S.  Hughes,  Banker,  Richmond. 

James  Hughes,  Banker,  Richmond. 

D.  P.  Whitmer,  Attorney  at  Law. 

Jas.  W.  Black,  Attorney  at  Law. 

L.  C.  Cantwell,  Postmaster,  Richmond. 

George  I.  Wasson,  Mayor. 

Jas.  A.  Davis,  County  Collector. 

C.  J.  Hughes,  Probate  Judge  and  Presiding  Ju§- 
tice  of  Ray  County  Court. 

George  W.  Trigg,  County  Clerk. 

W.  W.  Mosby,  Doctor  of  Medicine. 

Thomas  McGinnis,  ex-Sheriff,  Ray  County. 

J.  P.  Queseni>ery,  Merchant. 

W.  R.  Holman,  Furniture  Merchant. 

Louis  Slaughter,  Recorder  of  Deeds. 

Geo.  W.  Buchanan,  M.  D. 

A.  K.  Reyburn. 
Given  at  Richmond.  Mo.,  this  March  19th,  1881." 

APPENDIX  NO.  0. 

KIRTLAND,  OHIO,  Jan.  81, 1884. 

HON.  CLERK  OP  COURTS,  WAYNE  COUNTY,  N.  Y  ,  Dear 
Sir: — Will  you  please  turn  to  your  records  and  ascer- 
tain for  me  information  upon  the  following  questions, 
to-wit: 

First,  was  there  an  officer  In  youT county  In  the  yeari 
1833  or  1834,  by  the  name  of  Thorn  as  P.  Baldwin,  who 
was  a  judge  of  the  County  Courts? 

Second,  was  there  an  office  of  your  county  with 
that  title  during  the  year  1833,  or  was  his  title,  Judge 
of  Courts  of  Common  Pleas  ? 

If  it  should  take  time  to  examine,  or  turn  to  your 
records  to  asertain  these  facts,  I  will  gladly  remit  to 
you  the  expense  of  the  trouble,  if  you  will  designate 
the  same  by  return  mail.  Very  Truly. 

E.  L.  KELLEY. 

APPENDIX  NO.  7. 

KIRTLAND,  OHIO,  Jan.  81, 1884. 

JOHN  McGoNiGAt,  ESQ.,  LYONS,  N.  Y.,  Dear  Si»-.«— 
Yours  of  Feb.  1st,  in  answer  to  Inquiries  is  at  hand. 

Enclosed  find  fee,  50  cents,  and  50  cents  for  troub- 
ling: you  additionally. 

Can  you  tell  me  who  was  the  Judge  of  your  County 
Court  in  the  year  1833,  if  anybody  T 

Was  there  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  your  county  in 
the  year  1833  by  the  name  of  Fredrick  Smith  ? 

You  need  not  examine  for  either  of  these  for  any 
other  year  except  1833 ;  but  I  wish  to  be  certain  as  to 
this  year,  as  the  matter  is  an  important  one. 

Thanking  you  for  your  prompt  reply,  and  hoping 
to  again  hear  from  you,  I  am,  Very  Truly, 

E.  L.  KELLKY. 

[For  an«wen  to  Nos.  6  and  7,  see  book.] 


The  matter  set  forth  in  Appendix 
mutual  consent. 


'A,  B,  and  C,"  and  in  Nos.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6  and  7,  it  by 

E.  L.  KELLEY, 
CLARK  BRADEN. 


Copyright,  1884,  by  CLABK  BRADEN. 


INDEX 


397 


INDEX-CONTENTS. 

Preface. 
Agreement,  2;  rules,  2;  propositions,  2. 

Introduction. 

Moderators,  3;  reading  of  rules,  3;  opening 
of  debate,   3. 

Mr.  Kelley's.  First  Speech. 
First  proposition:    Is  the  Book  of  Mormon 
of    divine    origin    and    its    teachings    en- 
titled   to    the    respect   and    belief   of    all 
Christian  people,  3;   necessity  for  exam- 
ination, 3;   claims  made  for  book,  4,   5; 
personal  witnesses,  5,  object  of  book,  6;   j 
promise    of    knowledge    of    its    truth,    6;   i 
proper  standard  of  its  trial,  6;  character 
of  its  teachings,  7. 

Mr.  Braden's  First  Speech. 
His  statement  of  differences  between  the 
disputants,  8,  9;  objections  to  opponent's 
belief  in  general,  9,  10,  11;  manner  of 
working  of  Holy  Spirit,  12;  promise  of 
Holy  Spirit,  13.' 

Mr.  Kelley's  Second  Speech. 
Others  besides  Jews  entitled  to  God's  com- 
munication, 16;  peopling  of  American 
Continent,  16;  Bible  with  reference  to 
people  of  American  Continent,  16;  loca- 
tion of  "other  sheep,"  17;  the  blessing  of 
Joseph,  18. 

Mr.  Braden's  Second  Speech. 
Holy  Spirit  not  a  gift  to  all,  19;  manner  of 
its  bestowal,  19;  purpose  of  miraculous 
powers,  20;  miraculous  power  not  a  part 
of  the  gospel,  20;  how  long  to  remain,  21; 
the  "more  excellent  way,"  21;  Mormonism 
reveals  no  new  ideas,  22,  23. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Third  Speech. 
Joseph's  land,  25;  its  people,  25;  New 
truths  discovered  by  Mormonism,  26 ;  com- 
munication from  God  not  shut  off,  27; 
America  the  promised  land  of  thirty- 
seventh  chapter  of  Ezekiel,  27;  marvelous 
work  to  come  forth  at  appointed  time,  28; 
Joseph's  land  again,  29;  New  Testament 
Scriptures  not  sufficient,  29. 

Mr.  Braden's  Third  Speech. 
Character  of  Joseph  Smith  examined,  31, 
32,  33;  America  Joseph's  land  unnatural 
interpretation  of  Joseph's  blessing,  33; 
human  origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  33, 
34;  the  Spalding  Romance,  34,  35. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fourth  Speech. 
Joseph's  blessing,  36;  New  Testament  prom- 
ises fulfilled  in  Book  of  Mormon,  36,  37; 
who  shall  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  37,  38; 
church  of  Christ  a  habitation  of  God 
through  the  Spirit,  39;  continuation  of 
miracles  through  the  gifts,  39,  40;  claim 
that  the  Book  of  Mormon  is  an  addition  to 
the  Bible  is  examined,  40,  41. 


Mr.  Braden's  Fourth  Speech. 
Presentation    of    Spalding   story    continued, 
42-45;  Rigdon's  part  in  the  coming  forth 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  45-47. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fifth  Speech. 
Condition  of  society  and  education  at  the 
coming  forth  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  47, 
48;  information  found  in  Book  of  Mormon, 
49;  doctrine  of  book,  49;  historical  evi- 
dences favor  teachings  of  the  book,  50,  51. 

Mr.  Braden's  Fifth  Speech. 
Origin  of  the  theory  that  Indians  are  Isra- 
elites, 52;  prophecies  of  the  Bible  exam- 
ined, 52;  powers  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  53, 
54;  Rigdon  and  Smith  concocting  their 
scheme,  55,  56;  Mrs.  Harris  interferes,  56. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Sixth  Speech. 
Disclaims  credit  for  originating  theory  that 
American  aborigines  were  Israelites,  56; 
historians  and  explorers  with  reference 
to  an  American  civilization,  56-58;  Mr. 
Braden's  methods  of  scandalizing  exam- 
ined, 59,  60. 

Mr.  Braden's  Sixth  Speech. 
American  antiquities  examined,  61 ;  Solo- 
mon Spalding  an  American  antiquity  en- 
thusiast, 61;  early  history  of  Rigdon  and 
Harris,  61,  62;  Spalding's  object  in  writ- 
ing his  romance,  64 ;  summary  of  evidence, 
65-67. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Seventh  Speech. 

History  of  publication  of  Book  of  Mormon, 

69;  answer  to  Spalding  Romance  theory 

of   origin    of    Book   of    Mormon,    69,    70; 

correct  methods  of  judging  men,  71,  72. 

Mr.  Braden's  Seventh  Speech. 
The  Spalding  Romance  again,  74;  Mormon 
chronology,  75-77. 

Mr.   Kelley's   Eighth   Speech. 
Character  of  Smiths  defended,  78,  79;  Bra- 
den's alibi  examined,  79-81;  locating  the 
Spalding  Romance,  82,  83. 

Mr.  Braden's  Eighth  Speech. 
Mormon  chronology  continued,  84-88;  ques- 
tions for  Mr.  Kelley,  88,  89. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Ninth  Speech. 
Comparison  of  the  Spalding  Romance  and 
the   Book  of  Mormon,    90,    91;     Mormon, 
chronology  examined,  93,  94. 

Mr.  Braden's  Ninth  Speech. 
Spalding  wrote  several  manuscripts,  95; 
analysis  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  97;  all 
good  things  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  stolen 
from  Bible,  97;  sins  of  Bible  worthies  ac- 
counted for,  98;  Joseph  Smith's  character 
not  defensible,  99. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Tenth  Speech. 
Early  history  of  Sidney  Rigdon,  100,  101; 
internal  evidences  of  the  Book  of  Mormon 
examined,  104-106. 


S98 


INDEX 


Mr.  Braden's  Tenth  Speech. 
Internal  evidences  examined,  107-112. 
Mr.   Kelley's   Eleventh   Speech. 
'Further  examination  of  the  work  of  Howe, 
113-115;    what   became   of   the    Spalding 
Romance,  116,  117. 

Mr.  Braden's  Eleventh  Speech. 
Character  of  witnesses  used  in  the  Spalding 
Manuscript  Story  defended,  118,  119; 
construction  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  and 
the  authorship  revealed  by  its  language 
and  its  theories,  120-122. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Twelfth  Speech. 
Testimony  of  witnesses  against  the  Book  of 
Mormon  examined,  123-125;  with  refer- 
ence to  Mr.  Braden's  questions,  126;  de- 
fense of  the  statements  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  126-128. 

Mr.  Braden's  Twelfth  Speech. 
Theology  and  statements  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  examined,  128-130;  Jaredite 
boats,  131;  actions  of  Joseph  and  Emma 
Smith  not  in  harmony  with  the  prophecies 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  132. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Thirteenth  Speech. 
Animus  of  the  Spalding  Story,  133;  location 
of  the  Spalding  Romance  at  the  time  of 
Mr.  Howe's  attack  on  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, 134;  character  of  Howe's  work  in 
general,  134,  135;  Bible  objections  exam- 
ined, 137,  138. 

Mr.  Braden's  Thirteenth  Speech. 
Book  of  Mormon  does  away  with  the  Bible, 
140;  contradicts  the  Bible,  140;  mistakes 
of  the  book,  140-142. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fourteenth  Speech. 
Answers  arguments  against  doctrines  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  143-146. 

Mr.  Braden's  Fourteenth  Speech. 
Inconsistencies    and    contradictions    within 
Book  of   Mormon   itself,   and  the  contra- 
dictions of  the   Book  of  Mormon  by  the 
revelations  of  Joseph  Smith,  148-152. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fifteenth  Speech. 
Corroborative  evidence  for  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, adduced  from  antiquarians  and  ex- 
plorers, 154;  construction  of  the  boats 
of  Jared  examined,  155;  similarity  of  the 
faith  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints  and  of  the 
Campbellites  examined,  155,  156;  Book 
of  Mormon  first  on  the  ground  with  many 
items  of  New  World  history,  156-158. 

Mr.  Braden's  Fifteenth  Speech. 
Character  of  Kelley's  testimony  assailed, 
158;  conflicting  dates,  159;  work  of  the 
translating  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  shown 
up,  159-162;  claim  made  that  the  Book  of 
Mormon  contradicts  the  Bible,  162. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Sixteenth  Speech. 
Probability    of    the    ancient    settlement    of 
America,  163;  objections  to  the  contents 


of  the  book  answered,  164-166;   rejection 
of  the  house  of  Israel  examined,  168. 

Mr.  Braden's  Sixteenth  Speech. 
Bible  and  Book  of  Mormon  compared,  169, 
170;  necessary  evidences  to  give  prestige 
to  the  book  are  wanting,  170,  171;  Joseph 
Smith's  character  called  in  question,  171, 
172;  the  three  witnesses  examined,  172, 
173;  testimony  of  the  eight  witnesses  ex- 
amined, 174. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Seventeenth  Speech. 
Necessary  developments   in  the   restoration 
of  the  gospel,  175,  176;  time  of  the  resto- 
ration, 176-178;  its  manner,  178,  179. 

Mr.  Braden's  Seventeenth  Speech. 
Further  examination  of  the  witnesses  and 
their  testimony  to  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
180-183;  Joseph  Smith  not  a  prophet,  183, 
184. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Eighteenth  Speech. 
Objections  to  the  character  of  the  witnesses 
and  to  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon reviewed,  185-188;  Book  of  Mormon 
and  the  Bible  compared,  189-191. 

Mr.  Braden's  Eighteenth  Speech. 
Further  examination  of  the  characters  and 
acts    of    Rigdon,    Smith,    et   al,    and    the 
blunders  in  language  and  matter  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  191-195. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Nineteenth  Speech. 
With  reference  to  the  prophecies  contained 
both  in  the  Bible  and  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon, 196,  197;  teachings  of  the  two  books 
proved  to  be  agreeable  to  each  other,  198, 
199;  peculiarities  of  phraseology  con- 
tained in  Book  of  Mormon  examined,  199; 
accounts  for  personal  differences  between 
Smith  and  David  Whitmer  and  Oliver 
Cowdery,  199;  argument  with  reference  to 
typographical  errors  considered,  200; 
process  of  translation  examined,  201. 

Mr.  Braden's  Nineteenth  Speech. 
Joseph   Smith  and  his  adventures  with  re- 
gard  to   concubinage   and   plural   wifery, 
202-207. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Twentieth  Speech. 
The  adduced  evidence  of  Mr.  Braden  exam- 
ined, 207;  charge  of  polygamy  given  some 
attention,    208;    recapitulation    and    sum- 
mary of  evidence,  210-213. 

Mr.  Braden's  Twentieth  Speech. 
Recapitulation  and  concluding  summary  on 
first  proposition,  215-219. 

Mr.  Braden's  First  Speech. 
Second  proposition:  Is  the  church  of  which 
I,  Clark  Braden,  am  a  member,  identical 
in  faith,  organization,  ordinances,  teach- 
ing, worship  and  practice,  with  the  church 
of  Christ,  as  it  was  left  comoleted  and 
perfected  by  the  apostles  of  Christ,  220; 
the  word  church  defined,  220;  inception 


INDEX 


399 


and  continuation  of  the  church,  220,  221; 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  revelation,  221;  items 
of  belief  of  the  Christian  Church,  221, 
222;  Paul's  platform  for  Christian  union, 
222;  analysis  of  this  platform,  222-224. 

Mr.  Kelley's  First  Speech. 
Proper  basis  of  proof  for  a  proposition  of 
this  nature,  225;  bestowal  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  working  of  miracles,  revelation, 
etc.,  a  part  of  the  work  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  226;  name  of  the  church,  227; 
apostasy  and  restoration,  228 ;  what  is  the 
church  left  perfected  by  the  apostles,  229 ; 
personal  enjoyment  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
promised,  230. 

Mr.  Braden's  Second  Speech. 
Continuation  of  statement  of  the  views  of 
the  church  he  represents,  230-232;  officers 
of  the  church,  233;  conversion  not  a  mir- 
acle, 233;  Holy  Ghost  not  promised  to  all, 
234. 

.    Mr.   Kelley's   Second   Speech. 
Practices  of  the  church  in  the  first  century, 
234-238 ;  Holy  Ghost  promised  to  all,  238 ; 
purpose  of  the  officers   and  gifts  of  the 
church,  239. 

Mr.  Braden's  Third  Speech. 
Explanation  of  the  birth  of  the  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,  242;  the  object  of  miraculous 
power  and  miracles,  243;  points  out  blun- 
ders of  Mr.  Kelley,  243. 

Mr.  Kelley's   Third  Speech. 
Demoted  to  a  comparison  between  the  church 
of  which  Mr.  Braden  is  a  member  and  the 
New  Testament  church,  244-248. 

Mr.  Braden's  Fourth  Speech. 
Shows  difference  between  the  baptism  of 
water  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  249; 
Holy  Spirit  to  be  received  only  by  the  im- 
position of  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  249; 
length  of  time  that  miracles,  apostles  and 
prophets  were  to  continue  in  the  church, 
250 ;  new  revelations  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God,  251 ;  difference  between  the  church 
under  consideration  and  other  churches 
stated,  251 ;  date  of  Christian  baptism 
considered,  252. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fourth  Speech. 
An  examination  of  Mr.  Braden's  method  of 
interpreting  scripture,  253-255;  examina- 
tion of  the  claim  that  the  Christian  Church 
has  apostles  in  it,  254,  255;  Mr.  Braden's 
church  can  not  get  authority  for  its  acts 
in  the  Scriptures,  255;  Mr.  Braden's 
church  more  presumptive  than  the  Latter 
Day  Saints,  256;  examination  of  the  claim 
that  Mr.  Campbell  is  a  restorer  and  not 
merely  a  reformer,  256,  257. 

Mr.  Braden's  Fifth  Speech. 
The  commencement  of  the  church,  258 ;  office 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  its  baptism,  re- 
ception, etc.,  258-260;  source  of  authority 
for  preaching  and  other  ministerial  work, 


260;   is   Campbellism  the  origin  of  Mor- 
monism,  260-262. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fifth  Speech. 
Authority,  by  whom  conferred,  263;  church 
building,  264;  continuation  of  apostles, 
264;  law  for  the  regulation  of  the  church, 
265;  how  officers  in  the  church  should  be 
called,  265 ;  office  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
265,  266;  rights  of  individuals  given  by 
the  church,  266;  Mr.  Campbell's  church 
does  not  answer  the  description  of  a 
restoration,  267. 

Mr.  Braden's  Sixth  Speech. 
Compares  the  tendencies  of  the  teachings  of 
the  Christian  Church  and  those  of  Latter 
Day   Saints,   268-270;    submits   a   list   of 
questions,   270. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Sixth  Speech. 
Time  of  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  its 
work,  the  "more  excellent  way,"  gifts, 
apostles,  and  manifestations  of  the  Spirit, 
271-274;  question  of  authority,  276;  the 
leadings  of  the  Spirit  to  be  relied  upon, 
277. 

Mr.  Braden's  Seventh  Speech. 
Government  of  the  church,  the  "more  ex- 
cellent way,"  the  growth  of  the  church,  the 
effect  of  the  church  upon  the  individual, 
and  upon  the  world,  278-280;  Ananias  a 
special  apostle,  280;  an  apostle  only  has 
power  to  impart  the  Holy  Spirit,  280. 

Mr. .Kelley's  Seventh  Speech. 
The  interpretation  of  scripture,  283;  the 
Holy  Ghost,  284;  continuation  of  mirac- 
ulous gifts,  284 ;  number  of  times  the  law 
is  made  perfect,  or  complete,  284 ;  methods 
of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Campbellites  com- 
pared, 285 ;  the  perfect  law,  286 ;  the  ques- 
tion of  authority,  287;  continued  reve- 
lation and  the  "more  excellent  way,"  287; 
gospel  not  first  preached  at  Pentecost,  288. 

Mr.  Braden's  Eighth  Speech. 
Closing   speech   and    recapitulation    on    the 
second  proposition,  289-294. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Eighth  Speech. 
Closing   speech    and    review   of  the    second 
proposition,  295-301. 

Mr.  Kelley's  First  Speech. 
Third  proposition:  Is  the  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints  in  fact  the  church  of  God,  and 
accepted  with  him,  302;  statement  of  the 
faith  and  doctrine  of  the  Latter  Day 
Saints  303;  in  harmony  with  the  word  of 
God,  abiding  in  the  doctrine,  founded  by 
the  Christ  in  harmony  with  the  promise, 
303,  304;  necessity  for  the  church  and  ex- 
amination of  prophecies,  305;  where  is 
the  church  and  where  is  it  impossible  for 
the  church  to  exist,  306. 

Mr.  Braden's  First  Speech. 
One   God;   one  Lord,  one   Spirit,  one  faith, 


400 


INDEX 


one  baptism,  one  hope,  one  body,  one  name, 
a  comparison  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible  and  of  Mormonism  with  reference 
to  these,  307-311. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Second  Speech. 
Braden's   positions    on    the    "one    God,    one 
Lord,"  etc.,  canvassed,  312-314;  the  apos- 
tasy, 315;  the  restoration,  316,  317. 

Mr.  Braden's  Second  Speech. 
Eevelations    presented    by   the    Latter    Day 
Saints    examined,   318-322;    garbling   and 
blasphemy  of  the  Scriptures,  322. 

Mr.  Kelley's   Third  Speech. 

Joseph  Smith's  account  of  the  restoration  of 

the  gospel,  322-325;  its  harmony  with  the 

Scriptures,  325,  326;  continued  revelation, 

325-327;  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  326. 

Mr.  Braden's  Third  Speech. 
A.  further  examination  of  the  prophecies, 
and  the  methods  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints 
and  their  inharmony  with  the  Scriptures 
and  all  good  men,  328-330;  Christ's  pur- 
ported work  among  the  people  on  this 
continent  reviewed,  330;  the  restoration 
of  the  priesthood  examined,  330,  331. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fourth  Speech. 
Difference  in  the  translations  canvassed, 
332;  baptism  of  the  Spirit  again,  333; 
officers  of  the  church,  333;  the  priesthood 
and  church  organization,  334 ;  conception 
of  God  and  his  character,  335;  the  pro- 
duction of  a  miracle,  335;  "those  who 
reject  the  Book  of  Mormon  to  suffer  loss, 
336. 

Mr.  Braden's  Fourth  Speech. 

A  review  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  and  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants, 
337-340. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Fifth   Speech. 

Examines  the  attack  on  doctrines  of  bap- 
tism of  children,  the  ordinance  of  the 
washing  of  feet,  etc.,  341;  character  of 
the  moral  and  doctrinal  teachings  of  the 
Doctrine  and  Covenants  defended,  342; 
stories  of  Joseph  Smith  refuted,  344 ;  some 
prophecies  of  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants 
presented,  345. 


Mr.  Braden's  Fifth  Speech. 
Unreliability  of  the  Mormon  witnesses,  346, 
347;  restoration,  347;  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tism, 347;  submits  evidence  to  show  the 
ridiculous  character  of  the  operations  of 
the  early  men  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints, 
348-350. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Sixth  Speech. 
The  Inspired  Translation  of  the  Scriptures 
defended,  350-352;  the  trial  of  a  system 
by  the  stories  circulated  about  the  men 
presenting  it  not  proper,  352 ;  stories  with 
reference  to  Mr.  Braden's  character  pre- 
sented, 353;  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
354;  command  to  seek  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit,  355. 

Mr.  Braden's  Sixth  Speech. 
An  examination  of  the  character  of  the  lead- 
ing Latter  Day  Saint  ministers  of  early 
date,  356-360;  getting  of  money  the  basis 
of  their  allegiance,  357-360. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Seventh  Speech. 
Priesthood  authority  examined  into,  360, 
361;  necessity  for  continued  revelation, 
362;  answer  to  the  attacks  of  Mr.  Braden 
on  the  character  of  the  ministry  and 
leaders  of  the  Latter  Day  Saints,  364-366. 

Mr.  Braden's  Seventh  Speech. 
Charges  trickery,  jealousy,  swindling,  fraud 
of   various   natures,   lying,    stealing,   and 
fanaticism  as  accounting  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  Mormonism,  366-370. 

Mr.  Kelley's  Eighth  Speech. 
Closing  speech  of  the  affirmative  on  the  last 
proposition,   reviewing  methods   of  argu- 
ment,   character   of   testimony   presented, 
and  doctrines  established,  371-377. 

Mr.  Braden's  Eighth  Speech. 
Closing  speech  of  Mr.  Braden  on  the  third 
proposition,  being  a  defense  of  the  meth- 
ods of  argument,  the  evidence,  and  a  re- 
capitulation thereof,  377-382. 

Appendices. 

Appendix  A,  382;  appendix  B,  382;  appendix 
C,  383;  appendix  2,  391;  appendices  3,  4, 
5,  6,  7,  396. 


